Unchallenged finding on marketability defeats the appeal where that finding independently sustains the conclusion.

The departmental appeal failed because the challenge addressed only classification under Note 6(a) to Chapter XV and did not assail the separate finding that the product lacked marketability. That unchallenged finding independently supported the conclusion that the item was not goods, so the appellate challenge was incomplete and could not survive. The lower authority's order was left undisturbed, and the appeal was dismissed for want of a challenge to a dispositive finding. An appeal does not survive where an unchallenged finding sufficient to sustain the decision remains in force.

---

---

Issues: Whether the departmental appeal was maintainable when the finding that the product lacked marketability was not challenged.

Analysis: The impugned order had proceeded on two grounds, namely that the item did not answer the meaning of waste and that it was not marketable. The appeal questioned only the classification aspect arising under Note 6(a) to Chapter XV and did not assail the finding on marketability. Since that finding independently supported the conclusion that the item was not goods, the appellate challenge was incomplete.

Conclusion: The appeal was held not sustainable for want of a challenge to the finding on marketability, and the departmental appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower authority was left undisturbed and the departmental challenge was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal does not survive where an unchallenged finding sufficient to sustain the decision remains in force.

---