Printed chocolate wrappers are classifiable as articles of paper when packaging is their essential function, not printing.

Printed chocolate wrappers remain articles of paper where their essential function is packaging, even if they are cut to size, printed, coloured and designed. The printing is incidental to the wrapping function and does not convert the item into a product of the printing industry. The distinction drawn in Supreme Court authority was applied to hold that a wrapper used to cover chocolate is not comparable to a separate printed label attached to another article. The wrapper was classified under Tariff Sub-heading 4818.90, not Heading 4901.90, and the Revenue's appeal succeeded while the cross-objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the printed paper wrapper used for wrapping chocolate, with printing that identified the product and added colour and design, was classifiable as a product of the printing industry under Tariff Heading 4901.90 or as an article of paper under Tariff Heading 4818.90, and whether it could fall under sub-headings 4818.12 or 4818.13.

Analysis: The wrapper was found to be paper cut to size, printed on one side, and used with glue or paste on both sides to wrap the chocolate. Its principal function was wrapping the chocolate, while the printing, colour and design were only incidental to that packaging function. The distinction drawn from the Supreme Court decisions was that material used for packaging does not become a product of the printing industry merely because it bears printing, and that the essential character of the product remains packaging, not printing. The reasoning in the labels case was held inapplicable because the present product itself functioned as a wrapper and not as a separate printed label attached to another article.

Conclusion: The wrapper was not classifiable under Heading 4901.90 as a product of the printing industry; it was correctly classifiable under Tariff Sub-heading 4818.90 as an article of paper. The Revenue's appeal succeeded and the assessee's cross-objection failed.

---