Tariff classification of lubricants turns on specific entry coverage, new product formation, and proof of manufacture.

Mahamoli Dry Lubricant was not shown, on the record, to become a new marketable commodity merely because anti-oxidants and rust inhibitors were added to molybdenum disulphide, and the Department's failure to produce technical evidence left that finding undisturbed. The other three products, however, were treated as blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases once additives were mixed with grease, bringing them within Tariff Item 11B. The residuary Tariff Item 68 was unavailable where a specific entry applied, and the departmental attempt to shift classification to Item 68 was rejected for want of supporting evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether Mahamoli Dry Lubricant and the other three lubricating products were liable to duty under Tariff Item 11B or Tariff Item 68, and whether the processes adopted amounted to manufacture.

Analysis: For Mahamoli Dry Lubricant, the record did not show that adding anti-oxidants and rust inhibitors to molybdenum disulphide created a new marketable commodity; the Department also failed to produce the chemical report or other supporting technical material to displace the finding that the base material was already a dry lubricant. For the remaining three products, once additives were mixed with grease, the goods fell within the scope of blended or compounded lubricating oils and greases under Tariff Item 11B. The residuary Tariff Item 68 could not be invoked where a specific tariff entry applied, and the departmental case for shifting classification to Item 68 was unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of no interference as to Mahamoli Dry Lubricant was upheld, while the other three products were held classifiable under Tariff Item 11B and liable to duty thereunder, not under Tariff Item 68.

---