https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89575 Hypalon-40 classification was examined by reference to earlier binding precedent and tariff material. The note records that the majority treated the product as synthetic rubber under Heading 40.02 because the same product had already been considered by the Calcutta High Court and followed by the Tribunal under Chapter 40. It also notes that the department's statutory and tariff arguments were not sufficient to displace those precedents. The stated result is that the alternative classification under Heading 39.01 as chlorosulphonated polyethylene was rejected. en-us Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 28 Sep 2011 11:49:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89575 Hypalon-40 classification was examined by reference to earlier binding precedent and tariff material. The note records that the majority treated the product as synthetic rubber under Heading 40.02 because the same product had already been considered by the Calcutta High Court and followed by the Tribunal under Chapter 40. It also notes that the department's statutory and tariff arguments were not sufficient to displace those precedents. The stated result is that the alternative classification under Heading 39.01 as chlorosulphonated polyethylene was rejected. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 04 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89575