Classification of anaerobic adhesives turns on principal ingredient and commercial understanding, not later polymerisation on application.

Anaerobic adhesives with a monomer as the principal ingredient and only a minor polymer additive were treated as not classifiable as adhesives based on plastics where the polymer served merely as a thickening or viscosity-modifying agent. The later polymerisation that occurs on application did not alter the product's character at clearance, and the available departmental material was insufficient to show a plastic-based preparation in commercial understanding. The notification benefit was therefore available for the covered items. For items not addressed by the technical reports, the evidentiary record was incomplete, so those matters required remand for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether anaerobic adhesives composed mainly of monomer with minor polymer additives were classifiable as glues or adhesives based on plastics so as to deny the notification benefit; (ii) whether the matter required remand for items not covered by the available technical reports.

Issue (i): Whether anaerobic adhesives composed mainly of monomer with minor polymer additives were classifiable as glues or adhesives based on plastics so as to deny the notification benefit.

Analysis: The technical material showed that the principal ingredient was a monomer and that the small quantity of polymer present functioned only as a thickening or viscosity-modifying agent. The adhesive action arose on application, when polymerisation occurred under anaerobic conditions, but that subsequent change did not convert the product, at the time of clearance, into a plastic-based preparation. The departmental material was found insufficient to show that the goods were, in commercial understanding, adhesives based on plastics.

Conclusion: The goods were not shown to be based on plastics and the assessee was entitled to the notification benefit.

Issue (ii): Whether the matter required remand for items not covered by the available technical reports.

Analysis: The records and expert reports did not cover all the items mentioned in the show cause notice. For those items, the evidentiary basis was inadequate for a final determination on the existing material.

Conclusion: The matter was required to be remanded for the uncovered items.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge failed on the merits for the covered items, while the unresolved items were sent back for fresh consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: A product whose main constituent is a monomer, with polymer used only as an additive or thickener, is not necessarily an adhesive based on plastics merely because polymerisation occurs later at the time of application.

---