Trade parlance governs tariff classification where laminated sheets are known commercially as decorative sheets, not plastic sheets.

Laminated sheets made from paper and resin were held not to fall within the plastic tariff entry merely because resin was used in manufacture. The decisive point was that the finished goods were not wholly made of plastic material and their commercial identity was not shown to be plastic sheets. Applying the trade parlance test, the product was understood in the market as decorative laminated sheets, not as plastic sheets. On that basis, technical composition alone was insufficient for classification as articles of plastic, and the goods were assessable under the residuary tariff item rather than the plastic entry.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether laminated sheets manufactured with paper and resin forming solution fell within Tariff Item 15A(2) on the basis of their physical form and the materials used; (ii) Whether, applying the trade parlance criterion, the goods were commercially known as plastic sheets.

Issue (i): Whether laminated sheets manufactured with paper and resin forming solution fell within Tariff Item 15A(2) on the basis of their physical form and the materials used.

Analysis: The product was in sheet form and contained resin forming solution which was found to be resole falling under Tariff Item 15A(1). However, the laminate was not wholly made of material covered by Tariff Item 15A(1). The paper constituted the major part by weight and the final product emerged from the combined use of resin impregnated paper under heat and pressure. The mere fact that resin was used in the manufacturing process did not make the finished laminate a product made of plastic within the tariff entry.

Conclusion: The laminated sheets did not fall within Tariff Item 15A(2) merely because resin covered by Tariff Item 15A(1) was used in their manufacture.

Issue (ii): Whether, applying the trade parlance criterion, the goods were commercially known as plastic sheets.

Analysis: Classification under the entry depended on how the goods were known in the market, not only on technical literature or standards. No trade evidence was produced to show that the goods were bought and sold as plastic sheets. The materials relied upon by the revenue showed only that the product belonged to the plastic industry from a technical standpoint. The Court accepted that the product was generally known as decorative laminated sheets and not as plastic sheets in commercial parlance.

Conclusion: The goods were not established to be commercially known as plastic sheets and therefore could not be classified under Tariff Item 15A(2).

Final Conclusion: The laminated sheets were not classifiable as articles of plastic under Tariff Item 15A(2) and were assessable under Tariff Item 68, so the revenue appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, a finished product can be treated as an article of plastic only if it is commercially understood as such and is wholly made of plastic material within the tariff description; technical composition alone is insufficient where the product is known in trade by a different name.

---