Composite battery components classified as primary cell parts where essential character, not mere carbon content, determined the tariff heading.

Film lined electrodes used in flat dry cell batteries were treated as composite articles comprising carbon, zinc and paper, and were classified as components of primary cells under tariff heading 85.03 rather than as battery carbons or carbon electrodes under heading 85.18/27(1). Rule 2(b) was held inapplicable because it addresses goods described by material, not a finished composite article. The classification therefore turned on the essential character and the most specific description, with the article understood as nearly a complete primary cell except for the jacket.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether film lined electrodes imported for use in flat dry cell batteries were classifiable as battery carbons or carbon electrodes under tariff heading 85.18/27(1), or as primary cells and parts thereof under tariff heading 85.03; (ii) whether interpretative Rule 2(b) applied to treat the composite article as falling under the carbon heading, or whether the goods had to be classified as a composite article under the relevant interpretative rule.

Issue (i): whether film lined electrodes imported for use in flat dry cell batteries were classifiable as battery carbons or carbon electrodes under tariff heading 85.18/27(1), or as primary cells and parts thereof under tariff heading 85.03.

Analysis: The imported goods were described as film lined electrodes and were found to consist of a carbon layer on a zinc sheet with paper lamination carrying electrolyte. On the material placed before the Tribunal, the goods were intended to form unit cells for flat dry cell batteries and were not known or described as carbon electrodes or battery carbons. The article was more than a simple carbon article and was in substance a component of a primary cell, nearly a complete cell except for the jacket.

Conclusion: The goods were classifiable under tariff heading 85.03 and not under tariff heading 85.18/27(1).

Issue (ii): whether interpretative Rule 2(b) applied to treat the composite article as falling under the carbon heading, or whether the goods had to be classified as a composite article under the relevant interpretative rule.

Analysis: Rule 2(b) was held to be inapplicable because it deals with references to a material or substance and goods consisting wholly or partly of such material, not with a finished composite article made of carbon, zinc and paper. The imported item was a composite good, so classification had to be determined by the rules governing composite goods, including the principle of essential character and the most specific description. On that basis, the article was better understood as a component of the primary cell rather than a mere carbon electrode.

Conclusion: Interpretative Rule 2(b) did not assist the importer, and the composite goods were correctly classifiable as primary cell components under heading 85.03.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's appeal succeeded because the imported film lined electrodes were treated as composite articles forming part of primary cells, not as battery carbons or carbon electrodes.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite article made of several materials must be classified according to the rule applicable to composite goods and its essential character, and a mere presence of carbon does not make the article a battery carbon or carbon electrode when the item functions as a component of a primary cell.

---