Summarize the following court judgment. Civil Appeal Nos. 392 95 of 1988. Appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Central Excise and Salt Act	 1944 from the order dated 15.12.1986 of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal	 New Delhi in Appeal Nos. C/2130 to 2132/86 C & 1027/83 and order No. 757 760/86. B. Datta	 ASG	 Mrs. Indira Sawhney and P. Parmeshwaran for the Petitioners. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI	 J. These appeals under Section 643 130E(b) of the (hereinafter called the Act) are against the order dated 15th December	 1986 passed by the Customs	 Excise and Gold (Control	 Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter called CEGAT). These appeals are related to a dispute regarding the duty of custom imposed on the respondent. The department had levied duty on the product known as 'Sancticizer 429 ' imported by the respondent. The respondent had contested this duty and filed a claim for the refund. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected this claim. The Assistant Collector on test found it to be organic compound (easter type) inform of colourless viscose liquid and as per 7.0.046m should be considered as polymeric plasticizer. The Appellate Collector found that Chapter 38 of the was residuary in nature. According to him	 if the item was not covered by any other chapter of the then it would fall under Chapter 38. The Appellate Collector further found that linear polysters were covered by CCCN 39.01(E). The Appellate Collector held that the impugned goods are formed by the condensation of diabasic acid within dihydric alcohols and were similar to the poly condensation product of terphthalic acid or Adipic acid with ethanediel covered by above mentioned CCCN headings. The Appellate Collector held this CCCN headings corresponds to 39.01/06 of the . The Appellate Collector upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order of the Appellate Collector before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeals relying on the two decisions of the Tribunal one being Bhor Industries Ltd. vs Collector of Customs	 Bombay	 and the other Collector of Customs	 Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd. and another	 The Tribunal was of the view that the product was classifiable under the heading 38.01/19(6) of the . The decision of the Tribunal was later on followed by the subsequent decision referred to hereinbefore. In Bhor Industries Ltd. vs Collector of Customs	 Bombay (supra)	 the Tribunal observed that these are ordinarily liquids and	 in rare instances	 solids	 as simple high boiling solvents for the polymers. These are neither resins nor do they seem to be plastic materials; on the other hand	 these are added to resins to impart better flexibility or plastic properties to them. It was further observed that there was no evidence had been produced before the Tribunal to show that Sancticizer was a resin or plastic material as defined in Explanatory Notes to C.C.C.N. It was neither similar to resols or polysiobutylene to attract the mischief of Note 2(c) to Chapter 39 nor a separately defined Chemical Compound so as to fall within Chapters 28 or 29 of 644 . Hence	 it was classifiable not under Heading 39.01/06 as it stood before its amendment in 1978 but under 38.01/19(6) of as "plasticizer	 not elsewhere specified". The Tribunal in its decision considered the technical leaflet on the product. Sancticizer 429 was described as a medium high molecular polyester plasticizer made from a glycol reacted with a dibasic acid. Among the properties claimed for the product are good low temperature flexibility	 excellent electrical properties	 outstanding migration resistance	 humidity	 stability and resistance to oil and solvant extraction. It is said to be an excellent plasticizer for making oil resistant high temperature PVC wire and cable compounds. It is also stated to be useful for plasticizing ethyl cellulose	 mitrocellulose	 acrylic caulking compunds	 and adhesive systems based upon polyvinyl accetate	 styrene butadiene	 and acrylic latices. Reference was also made to Kirk othmer 's "Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology" 3rd edition page 111	 where it was observed as follows: "A plasticizer is incorporated in a material to increase its workability	 flexibility	 or distensibility. Addition of a plasticizer may lower the melt viscosity	 the second order transition temperature	 or the elastic modulus of the plastic. For effectiveness with polymeric materials	 a plasticizer needs to be initially mixed with the polymer either by dissolution of the resin in the plasticizer or the plasticizer in the resin	 by heat or dissolving both in a common solvent and subsequent evaporation of the solvent. In "Plastics materials" (4th edition	 page 80)	 J.A. Brydson refers to plasticizers ordinarily liquids and in rare instances solids as simply high boiling solvents for the polymer. The action is explained by saying that plasticizer molecules insert themselves between polymer molecules reducing but not eliminating polymer polymer contacts and generating additional free volume; also as some interaction between polymers and plasticizers off setting the spacing effect; or both. " The Tribunal came to the conclusion that plasticizers were not resins; these are added to resins to impart better flexibility or plastic properties to the latter. Nor did they seem to be plastic materials by themselves. The Tribunal found that Sancticizer 429 which is admitedly a plasticizer would	 therefore	 not have fallen for classification 645 under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule as it stood prior to its amendment in 1978. The said reasoning was reiterated by the Tribunal in the decision of Collector of Customs	 Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd. and another. There	 the Tribunal observed that as per various technical authorities	 plasticizers are not resins. Rather	 these are added to resins to impart better flexibility or plastic properties to them. These are not plastic materials by themselves either. Further	 goods under reference are not similar to resols or polysiobutylenes. Therefore	 their classification under Heading 30.01/106 of the 	 prior to and even after its amendment in 1978	 should not be applicable. Furthermore	 not being separately defined chemical compounds	 these would also not fall within Chapter 28 or 29 of the Act. Since these are not specified elsewhere	 their appropriate classification would be under Heading No. 39.01/19(6) as "Plasticizers	 not elsewhere specified". It is well settled in these matters how a good is known in the trade and treated in the trade literature is relevant and significant and often decisive factor. In that view of the matter	 the Tribunal was right in the view it took. These appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. N.V.K. Appeals dismissed.

The respondents who imported 'Sancticizer 429 '	 contested the levy of duty by the Department and filed a claim for refund	 which was rejected by the Assistant Collector on the ground	 that on ted the product was found to be organic compound (easter type) of colourless viscose liquid and as per 7.0.046 should be considered a polymeric plasticizer. On appeal	 the Appellate Collector came to the conclusion that Chapter 38 of the was residuary in nature and that if the item was not covered by any other Chapter of the Tariff Act only then it would fall under the said Chapter. He also found that linear polysters were covered by CCCN 39.01(E) and that the goods in question are formed by the condensation of diabasic acid within dihydric alcohols and were similar to the polycondensation products of terphthalic acid or adipic acid with ethanediel covered by the aforesaid CCCN headings	 which corresponds to 39.01/06 of the . The Appellate Collector upheld the decision of the Assistant Collector. The respondent appealed to the Customs Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeals taking the view that plasticizers were not resins	 but are added to resins to impart better flexibility of plastic properties to the latter	 that 'Sancticizer 429 ' is admittedly a plasticizer and would therefore not have fallen for classification under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule as it stood before amendment in 1978 and that the product was classifiable 642 under heading 38.01/19(6) of the Tariff Act. Dismissing the Appeals of the Revenue	 this Court	 ^ HELD: 1. As per various technical authorities	 plasticizers are not resins. These are added to resins to impart better flexibility or plastic properties to them. These are not plastic materials by themselves either. [644H] 2. The goods under reference in the instant case	 are not similar to resols or polysiobutylenes. Their classification under Heading 39.01/06 of the 	 prior to and even after its amendment in 1978	 should not be applicable. Not being separately defined chemical compounds	 these would also not fall within Chapter 28 or 29 of the Act. Since these are not specified elsewhere their appropriate classification would be under Heading No. 38.01/19(6) as "Plasticizers	 not elsewhere specified". [645C] 3. In these matters how a good is known in the trade and treated in the trade literature is relevant and significant and often decisive factor. [645D] "Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology" 3rd Edition page 111 referred to. Bhor Industries Ltd. vs Collector of Customs	 Bombay	 and Collector of Customs	 Bombay vs Bhor Industries Ltd. and another	 approved.