Tariff classification of Thiram turned on predominant use, with residuary Item 68 applying over rubber processing chemical classification.

Thiram was examined for additional duty classification under the Central Excise Tariff by reference to its real nature and predominant use. The revenue's material did not conclusively establish that the imported product matched the rubber accelerator described in the texts, while the record showed it was described and treated as an insecticide, fell within the Insecticides Act, 1968 definition, appeared under the import policy heading for insecticides and pesticides, and was imported against a pesticide end-use licence. In the absence of satisfactory evidence that its predominant use was as a rubber processing chemical, the residuary classification under Item 68 was appropriate.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported product, Thiram, was classifiable for additional duty purposes under Item 65 of the Central Excise Tariff as a rubber processing chemical or under Item 68 as a residuary item.

Analysis: The classification depended on the real nature and predominant use of the goods. The material relied upon by the revenue referred to a different chemical description and did not conclusively establish that the imported goods were the same as the rubber accelerator mentioned in the texts. The record also showed that the goods were described and treated as an insecticide, were covered by the definition of insecticide under the Insecticides Act, 1968, were included in the import policy under the insecticides and pesticides heading, and were imported against a licence indicating pesticide end-use. In these circumstances, and in the absence of satisfactory evidence that the predominant use was as a rubber processing chemical, the residuary classification was more appropriate.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Item 65 of the Central Excise Tariff and were correctly classifiable under Item 68. The view taken by the Collector (Appeals) was upheld.

---