Predominant fibre test applied to blended cotton and flax textiles for concessional duty under exemption notifications.

Blended cotton yarn, cotton fabrics, flax yarn and flax fabrics classified under Chapters 52 and 53 were held eligible for concessional duty under the exemption notifications because the expressions "cotton" and "flax" were to be read consistently with the tariff classification rules. In the absence of any separate definition in the notifications, textile mixtures were treated according to the fibre predominating by weight, so the fact that the goods were not wholly cotton or wholly flax did not defeat the exemption. A Supreme Court ruling on a different tariff entry and differently worded exemption was distinguished, and the earlier Tribunal view on predominance was followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether blended cotton yarn, cotton fabrics, flax yarn, and flax fabrics, though not 100% cotton or 100% flax, were entitled to concessional duty under the relevant exemption notifications when classified under Chapters 52 and 53 of the Tariff.

Analysis: The products were not in dispute as to classification, and the blended goods fell within the respective textile chapters. In the absence of any separate definition in the notifications, the expressions "cotton yarn", "cotton fabrics", "flax yarn", and "flax fabrics" had to be understood consistently with the classification rules, including the principle that textile mixtures are classified according to the fibre predominating by weight. The objection that the goods were not wholly cotton or wholly flax was rejected. The reliance on the Supreme Court decision concerning a different tariff entry and a differently worded exemption was held to be inapplicable. The earlier Tribunal view granting similar benefit to blended cotton fabrics on the basis of predominance was also followed.

Conclusion: The denial of concessional benefit was not justified, and the blended cotton and flax goods were held eligible for the notifications.

---