(1) THIS appeal against the order of the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate tribunal concerns the classification of a chemical known as "Di-butyl Para Crosol" (DPT) or "Butylated Hydroxy Toulene" (BHT). The controversy is as to whether it falls within the scope of Tariff Item 65 or the residuary Item 68. (2) TARIFF Item 65 reads thus: "65. Rubber processing chemicals, the following, namely: (1 Accelerators (2 Antioxidants." (3) THE tribunal noted that it had in an earlier order dealt with the same question in relation to imported goods and held, on the evidence before it, that the predominant or common use of BHT was not as an antioxidant used for rubber processing. It had left it open in that earlier case to the Revenue to establish that the predominant or common use of BHT was as a rubber antioxidant. It examined the material placed before it in the present case but it reached the same conclusion, (4) CLEARLY, Tariff Item 65 applies to accelerators and antioxidants which are rubber processing chemicals. The tribunal was, therefore, justified in taking the view that it had to be established that the chemical before it was predominantly or commonly used as an antioxidant in the processing of rubber. It is not enough that the chemical should be an antioxidant. Having regard to the terms of Tariff Item 65, the use to which the antioxidant can be put is relevant. The antioxidants covered thereby are such as can be used in the processing of chemicals. The conclusion of the tribunal on facts is that the predominant or common use of BHT is not as an antioxidant in the processing of rubber, BHT must, therefore, be held to fall outside Item 65 and, there being no other entry specific to it, within the residuary Item 68. (5) THE appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. (6) THE chemicals in these appeals are covered by the aforestated reasoning. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.