Interpretation of exemption notification for cloves turns on whether "less 71/2%" means ad valorem relief or specific-duty reduction.

Interpretation of Notification No. 431/76-Cus. on cloves turned on whether "less 71/2%" meant a 71/2% ad valorem concession or a reduction from a specific duty per kilogram. The majority treated the absence of the words "ad valorem" in the cloves entry, contrasted with their use in other entries, as indicating a specific-rate structure and refused to read those words into the notification by implication; the explanatory notes to the tariff schedule were held inapplicable because the table formed part of the notification itself. The dissent would have followed the earlier Tribunal view and construed the phrase as 71/2% ad valorem.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "less 71/2%" in Notification No. 431/76-Cus. dated 1-11-1976, in relation to cloves, meant 71/2% ad valorem or a reduction from the specific rate per kilogram.

Analysis: The majority held that the entry in the notification did not use the words "ad valorem" against the cloves entry, while those words appeared against the other entries. Since the table formed part of the notification and not the tariff schedule, the explanatory notes to the schedule were held inapplicable. On that reasoning, the phrase could not be expanded by implication, and the duty was treated as specific on weight basis rather than ad valorem. The dissenting view followed the earlier Tribunal decision and treated the same expression as meaning 71/2% ad valorem, relying on the earlier interpretive approach to the notification and related explanatory material.

Conclusion: The majority concluded that "less 71/2%" did not mean "less 71/2% ad valorem" and upheld the assessment on a specific-duty basis.

Dissenting Opinion: The dissent held that the expression "71/2%" in the notification meant 71/2% ad valorem and would have dismissed the appeal by following the earlier Tribunal view.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a notification entry omits the words "ad valorem" and the textual context shows a specific-rate structure, the court will not read those words into the provision by implication.

---