Common trade parlance governs tariff classification of Sunghani Sahu; market identity as dentifrice prevailed over tobacco content.

Tariff classification of Sunghani Sahu turned on its identity in common trade parlance, not merely its composition. Although the product contained tobacco powder and inorganic clay with iron oxide, the record showed it was known in the market as Dant Manjan and used as a dentifrice. No evidence was produced to rebut that finding, and reliance on a departmental tariff conference view about Gul did not establish equivalence between the two products. On that basis, Sunghani Sahu was classified under Chapter heading 3306.00 as a dentifrice, and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Sunghani Sahu was correctly classifiable as a dentifrice under Chapter heading 3306.00 or whether it fell under Tariff Item 2404.90 on the basis that it was a tobacco-based product.

Analysis: The product was found to contain tobacco powder and inorganic clay matter with iron oxide, but tariff classification had to be determined by the identity of the goods in trade parlance. The record contained a categorical finding that Sunghani Sahu was known in common trade as Dant Manjan and used as a dentifrice. No evidence was produced to dislodge that finding. The departmental reliance on a tariff conference view regarding Gul did not establish that Gul and Sunghani Sahu were identical products, and the conference itself had treated Gul as not known as Dant Manjan in common parlance.

Conclusion: Sunghani Sahu was rightly classified as a dentifrice under Chapter heading 3306.00, and the departmental appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the decisive test is the product's identity in common trade parlance, and a departmental challenge cannot succeed without evidence rebutting the finding that the goods are known and used as the claimed article in the market.

---