Tariff classification of glaze frit follows the residuary entry where the goods do not match the specific glass frit description.

Glaze frit was treated as ceramic glazed frit rather than glass frit because the test report, Indian Standard glossary, and trade notice did not establish a recognised trade or technical meaning supporting the specific glass frit description. In tariff classification, the specific entry could not be applied where the goods did not squarely answer that description, so the residuary sub-heading was preferred. The product was therefore classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90 and not under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10, consistent with the classification adopted by the Commissioner.

---

---

Issues: Whether the product described as glaze frit was correctly classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90 or under the specific entry for glass frit under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the goods were glass frit or ceramic glazed frit. The material on record, including the test report, the Indian Standard glossary, and the trade notice of the Rajkot Collectorate, did not establish any recognised term as glass frit in the relevant ceramic-glazed industry context. The product appeared to be ceramic glazed frit, and the trade notice had already treated frit ceramic glaze as classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90. In tariff classification, a residuary entry cannot be preferred when the goods are not shown to fall squarely within the specific description.

Conclusion: The product was held classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 3207.90 and not under Chapter sub-heading 3207.10.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the Commissioner was upheld, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the goods do not answer the specific tariff description relied upon by the Department, classification must follow the appropriate residuary entry supported by the relevant technical and trade understanding.

---