Marketability determines when manufacture is complete for defective sugar later re-processed, affecting rebate and duty treatment.

Defective sugar that was unmarketable when first produced was treated as manufactured only when re-processing later made it marketable. The distinction drawn was that goods never attaining marketability in the earlier period are attributable to the year in which manufacture is completed, whereas goods that were initially marketable but later deteriorated are different. On the stated facts, the re-processed quantity had not reached the stage of marketable sugar in the earlier year, so it was properly treated as production of the later year for rebate and duty purposes, and the rebate calculation on that basis was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether sugar that was defective and unmarketable when first produced, but was re-processed in a later year, should be treated as production of the year of re-processing for purposes of rebate and duty liability.

Analysis: The rebate notification granted relief with reference to sugar produced in the relevant period, but duty liability also depended on the goods answering the tariff description and being marketable. A distinction was drawn between sugar that never attained marketability in the first year and sugar that was initially marketable but later became unmarketable. Where the goods were originally defective and were only brought into a marketable condition after re-processing, manufacture was treated as completed only when marketability was achieved. On the facts, the re-processed quantity had not reached the stage of marketable sugar in the earlier year and was therefore attributable to the later year.

Conclusion: The re-processed sugar was correctly treated as production of the year of re-processing, and the rebate calculation based on that approach was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods that are defective and unmarketable when first produced are treated as manufactured only when re-processing makes them marketable.

---