Hypalon-40 classification under customs tariff turned on binding precedent and was placed in Heading 40.02.

Hypalon-40 classification was examined by reference to earlier binding precedent and tariff material. The note records that the majority treated the product as synthetic rubber under Heading 40.02 because the same product had already been considered by the Calcutta High Court and followed by the Tribunal under Chapter 40. It also notes that the department's statutory and tariff arguments were not sufficient to displace those precedents. The stated result is that the alternative classification under Heading 39.01 as chlorosulphonated polyethylene was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether Hypalon-40 is classifiable under Heading 40.02 as synthetic rubber or under Heading 39.01 as chlorosulphonated polyethylene.

Analysis: The majority held that the product had already been considered by the Calcutta High Court and followed by the Tribunal as falling under Chapter 40. It was found that the earlier decisions directly addressed the same product and that the statutory and tariff material relied upon by the department did not justify a different classification. The Tribunal accepted that the product should be classified according to the reasoning already adopted in the binding precedents rather than the contrary view taken below.

Conclusion: Hypalon-40 was held classifiable under Heading 40.02 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the contrary classification under Heading 39.01 was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---