Composite ribbon classification under paper tariff failed, so countervailing customs duty was not chargeable.

Countervailing customs duty was held not chargeable on imported composite ribbon reinforced with steel wires and silk threads, because it was not paper or paperboard in the commercial sense. Although the goods fell within a broad customs heading, Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff was narrower and covered paper and paperboard, including treated varieties, but not every article classified under the customs heading. The provisions were not treated as pari materia, so customs classification alone did not make the ribbon dutiable as paper under Item 17(2).

---

---

Issues: Whether countervailing customs duty was leviable on the imported ribbon under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, and whether the goods could be treated as paper or paperboard for that purpose.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to be a composite ribbon reinforced with steel wires and silk threads and not paper as understood commercially. The earlier classification discussion showed that the article was neither ordinary paper nor an article of paper, but a component-like industrial material. Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff covered paper and paperboard, including treated varieties, but the scope of that item was narrower than the group heading under the Customs Tariff Act. The fact that the goods fell under a broad customs heading did not automatically make them dutiable as paper under Item 17(2), because the two provisions were not pari materia and the excise item did not extend to every article covered by the customs heading.

Conclusion: Countervailing customs duty was not chargeable on the ribbon under Item 17(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, and the appeal succeeded.

---