Tariff classification by trade parlance and actual use led thermometer glass tubing to the residuary entry, not laboratory glassware.

Tariff classification of soft capillary glass tubing and bulb glass tubing for clinical thermometers depended on the article's primary identity, actual use, and trade parlance, not merely on raw material composition or technical standards. The goods were treated as intermediary articles used in thermometer manufacture, and the record did not show that they were known, sold, or used as laboratory glassware. Accordingly, classification as laboratory glassware under Item 23A(2) was rejected. For the pre-1979 tariff period, where no specific entry covered the goods, the residuary Item 68 applied, with consequential relief following from that classification.

---

---

Issues: Whether soft capillary glass tubing and bulb glass tubing for clinical thermometers were classifiable as laboratory glassware under Item 23A(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, or whether they fell under Item 23A(4) or, for the relevant pre-1979 tariff period, under the residuary Item 68.

Analysis: Classification was determined by the nature of the product, its actual use, and the manner in which it was known in trade, rather than by its raw material or by technical or standard-setting references alone. The goods were found to be intermediary articles used for the manufacture of clinical thermometers, and the record did not establish that they were used in laboratories or known and sold in trade as laboratory glassware. The standards relied upon by the appellants were treated as only supportive material and not conclusive. The earlier decision on the same type of goods, together with the Supreme Court's approach to tariff classification, supported the view that the goods were not laboratory glassware. Since the relevant pre-1979 tariff did not contain an entry for other glass, the correct classification for that period was the residuary item.

Conclusion: The claim for classification under Item 23A(2) was rejected. The goods were directed to be classified under Item 68 for the relevant period, with consequential relief to the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only to the extent of securing classification under the residuary tariff entry and related relief, while the plea for laboratory glassware classification failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Tariff classification must be based on the article's primary identity, actual use, and trade parlance, and where a product is not shown to be known or used as the claimed class of goods, it cannot be classified under that entry; if no specific entry covers it, the residuary entry applies.

---