Tariff classification of acrylic plastic scrap turns on a limiting explanation that cannot expand the substantive entry.

Acrylic plastic scrap obtained from waste and scrap of plates and sheets was held not classifiable under sub-item (1) of Tariff Item 15A for countervailing duty because Explanation III, read with the limiting word "only", could not enlarge the substantive entry. The explanation was treated as confined to the forms already covered by sub-item (1), not as bringing within it goods otherwise outside that item. The scrap was also found not to possess the relevant plastic character of an artificial or synthetic resin. Accordingly, such imported acrylic scrap fell under Tariff Item 68, and Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act did not alter that position.

---

---

Issues: Whether acrylic plastic scrap imported from waste and scrap of plates and sheets was classifiable for countervailing duty under sub-item (1) of Tariff Item 15A of the Central Excise Tariff or under Tariff Item 68, and whether Explanation III to Tariff Item 15A enlarged the scope of sub-item (1) to include such waste and scrap.

Analysis: The goods were undisputedly acrylic plastic scrap arising from waste and scrap of plates and sheets. The language of Explanation III, particularly the word "only" in its opening words, was treated as limiting the scope of sub-item (1) rather than expanding it. The explanation was read as applying only to materials in the specified forms of sub-item (1), and not as bringing into sub-item (1) goods which were otherwise outside that sub-item. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions holding that acrylic scrap of this nature did not possess the relevant plasticity of a plastic material and could not be treated as an artificial or synthetic resin. The reference to Chapter Note 3 of Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act did not alter the countervailing duty position, because the scope of Item 15A was narrower than the customs tariff heading.

Conclusion: The imported acrylic plastic scrap did not fall under sub-item (1) of Tariff Item 15A and was not liable to duty under Explanation III; it was classifiable under Tariff Item 68.

Final Conclusion: The classification issue was decided in favour of the importers on the principal question, while the connected appeals were disposed of partly by dismissal and partly by allowance according to the classification held applicable.

Ratio Decidendi: An explanatory note confined by the word "only" cannot be used to enlarge the substantive tariff entry, and acrylic scrap lacking the relevant plastic character does not become a plastic material merely because it is waste and scrap.

---