Ejusdem generis limits aluminium oxide exemption; polishing compositions fall outside the concessional customs notification.

Synthetic aluminium oxide imported for use in polishing compositions was treated as outside Notification No. 37/89-Cus., because the exemption for aluminium oxide used in manufacturing grinding wheels and "other abrasive products" was construed as limited to abrasive items similar to grinding wheels. The materials distinguished abrasive compositions, which are primarily cutting preparations, from polishing compositions, which are meant to produce a smooth reflective finish and may involve only incidental abrasive action. The majority applied ejusdem generis to confine the exemption to the intended class and declined to extend it beyond that scope. One Member dissented, viewing polishing as an abrasive function and favouring a broader construction.

---

---

Issues: Whether synthetic aluminium oxide imported for use in the manufacture of polishing compositions is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 37/89-Cus. as being used in "other abrasive products".

Analysis: The notification grants concessional duty to aluminium oxide imported for manufacture of grinding wheels and other abrasive products. The materials on record showed a technical and commercial distinction between abrasive compositions and polishing compositions: abrasive compositions are primarily cutting preparations, whereas polishing compositions are meant primarily to produce a smooth reflective finish and may contain only incidental abrasive action. The phrase "other abrasive products" was read in context with "grinding wheels", indicating products similar in nature to abrasive tools and not polishing compositions whose dominant function is polishing. The majority also held that the doctrine of ejusdem generis supported this restricted reading and that exemption notifications could not be extended to products outside the intended class.

Conclusion: The imported synthetic aluminium oxide used in polishing compositions is not covered by the notification and the exemption is not available.

Dissenting Opinion: One Member held that polishing is also an abrasive function and that the notification should be construed broadly to include polishing compositions, and therefore the benefit of exemption should be allowed.

---