Covered spandex yarn and predominating cotton weight determined exemption and classification under customs tariff rules.

Covered spandex yarn was treated as commercially and functionally covered spandex yarn, so it fell under Heading 56.06 and qualified for nil duty under Notification No. 26/94-C.E. for the period before the 1995 Budget. After the tariff change, the product was not gimped yarn because the core twisted with the covering material; since the mixed textile product contained predominantly cotton by weight, Note 2(A) of Section XI required classification according to the predominating textile material, placing it under Chapter 52 as cotton multiple (folded) yarn. The duty demands and adverse classification were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the product manufactured by the assessee was covered spandex yarn and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 26/94-C.E. for the period prior to the Budget of 1995. (ii) Whether, after the Budget of 1995, the product was classifiable under Heading 56.06 as gimped yarn or under Chapter 52 as cotton multiple (folded) yarn by applying Note 2(A) of Section XI.

Issue (i): Whether the product manufactured by the assessee was covered spandex yarn and entitled to exemption under Notification No. 26/94-C.E. for the period prior to the Budget of 1995.

Analysis: The product was found to consist of spandex yarn as the core and cotton roving as the covering material. The distinction drawn between covered spandex yarn and core spun yarn was held to be unreal in the facts of the case. The manufacturing process and the sample showed that the product was commercially and functionally covered spandex yarn. Under the tariff position prevailing prior to the Budget of 1995, covered spandex yarn fell under Heading 56.06, and Notification No. 26/94-C.E. specifically granted nil rate of duty to covered spandex yarn.

Conclusion: The product was covered spandex yarn and was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 26/94-C.E. for the earlier period.

Issue (ii): Whether, after the Budget of 1995, the product was classifiable under Heading 56.06 as gimped yarn or under Chapter 52 as cotton multiple (folded) yarn by applying Note 2(A) of Section XI.

Analysis: After the tariff alignment, Heading 56.06 covered gimped yarn, but the essential characteristic of gimped yarn is that the core does not itself undergo twisting with the cover threads. On inspection of the sample, the core was found to be twisted along with the cotton roving, so the product could not be treated as gimped yarn. The product was composed of 88% cotton fibre and 12% spandex yarn, and cotton predominated by weight. In such a mixed textile product, Note 2(A) of Section XI required classification according to the textile material predominating by weight. Since the product was not covered by the specific heading for gimped yarn, Rule 4 was not attracted.

Conclusion: The product was classifiable as cotton multiple (folded) yarn under Chapter 52 and not under Heading 56.06 after the Budget of 1995.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands and adverse classification orders were set aside, and the assessee succeeded on both the exemption issue for the earlier period and the classification issue for the later period.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a mixed textile product consists predominantly of cotton and the core twists with the covering material, it is not gimped yarn; classification must follow the textile material predominating by weight under Section XI, and a specific exemption for covered spandex yarn applies to the pre-amendment period.

---