Trade parlance classification of imported wire rods determined as alloy steel, not stainless steel, for customs refund purposes.

Imported Alferon wire rods were classified on the basis of their common or trade meaning, because the Customs Tariff did not define stainless steel. Stainless steel was treated as a corrosion-resistant alloy steel, whereas the goods here were characterised by high aluminium content and high electrical resistivity, making them distinct from stainless steel despite chromium content above 12%. Reliance on chromium percentage alone was rejected. On that basis, the goods were held to be alloy steel rather than stainless steel, supporting the consequential refund claim under the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported Alferon wire rods, having chromium content above 12% but high aluminium content and high electrical resistivity, were classifiable as stainless steel or as alloy steel for Customs Tariff purposes, and whether the appellants were entitled to refund under Notification No. 77/Cus. dated 18-6-1977.

Analysis: Stainless steel was treated as a corrosion-resistant alloy steel understood in common or trade parlance by its resistance to corrosion, whereas the imported goods were characterised by high electrical resistivity on account of their aluminium content. The absence of a tariff definition required adoption of the popular meaning of the expression, and on that basis the goods were distinct from stainless steel notwithstanding chromium content above 12%. The prior departmental reliance on chromium percentage alone was rejected.

Conclusion: The imported Alferon wire rods were not stainless steel but alloy steel, and the appellants were entitled to the consequential refund claim under the notification.

---