Tariff classification follows product description in chemical reports and trade literature; consequential duty demand was sustained.

Tariff classification of two textile auxiliaries turned on the chemical test report and the appellants' own trade literature. Kem Kerrier TCI Conc./D. Conc. was treated as a dye carrier, so classification under Heading 3809.00 was upheld rather than treatment as sulphonated castor oil under Heading 3402.10. Azofast was found to be an organic surface active agent, so classification under Heading 3402.90 was sustained and the claim to classify it as a finishing agent failed. The duty demand was also held sustainable because the show cause notices had proposed the duty rate and the classification lists were provisionally approved, making the final duty consequence lawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Kem Kerrier TCI Conc./D. Conc. was classifiable under sub-heading 3809.00 as a dye carrier or under sub-heading 3402.10 as sulphonated castor oil; (ii) Whether Azofast was classifiable under sub-heading 3402.90 as an organic surface active agent or under sub-heading 3801.90 as a finishing agent; (iii) Whether the duty demand and classification-based levy could be sustained after provisional approval of the classification list.

Issue (i): Whether Kem Kerrier TCI Conc./D. Conc. was classifiable under sub-heading 3809.00 as a dye carrier or under sub-heading 3402.10 as sulphonated castor oil.

Analysis: The product was examined on the basis of the chemical report and the appellants' own brochure. The test report described the goods as dye carrier, and the literature issued by the appellants also supported that description. In such circumstances, the objection that the chemical authority had exceeded its role was rejected. Since the goods were found to be dye carrier, the classification under Chapter 38 was upheld, and there was no occasion to apply Note 3 to Chapter 34.

Conclusion: The classification under sub-heading 3809.00 was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Azofast was classifiable under sub-heading 3402.90 as an organic surface active agent or under sub-heading 3801.90 as a finishing agent.

Analysis: The chemical test report treated the product as an organic surface active agent. The competing entry under Heading 34.02 covered organic surface active agents, and since the product was not shown to be sulphonated castor oil, it could not fall under sub-heading 3402.10. The assessee did not place additional evidence to support classification as a finishing agent, and the specific findings of the department were accepted.

Conclusion: The classification under sub-heading 3402.90 was upheld, against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the duty demand and classification-based levy could be sustained after provisional approval of the classification list.

Analysis: The show cause notices specifically proposed the rate of duty payable on the products, and the classification lists had been provisionally approved. On final approval, the duty consequence followed lawfully. The plea that there was no demand in the notices was rejected.

Conclusion: The duty demand was held sustainable, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The departmental classification of both products and the consequential duty liability were confirmed, leaving no relief for the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the product as manufactured and as supported by chemical test and trade literature governs; where the goods are found to answer a specific tariff description, that classification prevails and the consequential duty demand follows on final approval of a provisionally approved classification list.

---