Full Judgment
2. The Assistant Collector has classified the product under heading 3210.90 as a paint or varnish. He was guided by the fact that the substance was used to paint the chassis of motor vehicles. He found that the solvent evaporates on application, leaving behind a protective surface. He said that the material was quite different from mixtures used for road surfacing and for the similar use, and therefore would not be classifiable with them under heading 27.15. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that there is nothing in the Explanatory Notes to the Harmonised System of Nomenclature to exclude the classification of the product under heading 27.15, and accepted the manufacturer's claim for such classification. This is questioned in this appeal.
3. The appeal, and the departmental representative, reiterates what the Assistant Collector has said, that because the mixture on application provides a protective surface on the chassis it is quite different from the mixtures used for road surfacing or for similar purposes. The Explanatory Notes to 27.15 classify under that heading cut-backs consisting generally of 60% or more of bitumen with a solvent, which are used for road surfacing. The Notes excludes "bituminous paints and varnishes which differ from certain mixtures of this heading by, for example, the greater fineness of the fillers (if used), the possible presence of one or more film producing agents (other than asphalt, bitumen, tar or pitch), the ability to dry on exposure to air in the manner of paints or vanishes and the thinness and hardness of the film formed." 4. If the test report is correct, the product consists only of bituminous material. There is in any case nothing to show that it contains any fillers, film or film producing agents or other substances, which render it suitable for use as a paint or varnish. Its classification under the heading 27.15 therefore appears to be more appropriate leaving us no reason to interfere.