https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76838 Tariff classification of Johnson's Baby Hair Oil turned on the common parlance test: the product had to be classified according to how consumers and the trade understood it, not merely by labels or advertising. Test reports and affidavits supported the view that it was perfumed hair oil, while the product labels referring to nourishment of hair roots were not decisive on their own. As the Department produced no material to show a different market understanding, the product was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3305.10 and not under 3305.99. en-us Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76838 Tariff classification of Johnson's Baby Hair Oil turned on the common parlance test: the product had to be classified according to how consumers and the trade understood it, not merely by labels or advertising. Test reports and affidavits supported the view that it was perfumed hair oil, while the product labels referring to nourishment of hair roots were not decisive on their own. As the Department produced no material to show a different market understanding, the product was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 3305.10 and not under 3305.99. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 02 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=76838