1987 (5) TMI 252 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported Air Line Gauge under Heading 90.28(4) vs. Heading 84.45/48

Classification under Heading 90.28(4):
The appellants imported a Speedhone Machine along with an Air Line Gauge classified under Heading 90.28(4). The Assistant Collector rejected the claim for re-classification under Heading 84.45/48. The Appellate Collector upheld the decision, stating that as the gauge was described as "Air gauging equipment" and was optional, it was correctly classified under Heading 90.28(4) read with 90.16(1).

Arguments for re-classification under Heading 84.45/48:
The appellants argued that the Air Line Gauge should be considered an accessory under Heading 84.45/48 as it was imported along with the Honing Machine and had a combined value. They contended that the gauge was designed to be mounted on the machine, making it an accessory apparatus according to BTN Explanatory Notes (Section XVI).

Counter-arguments against re-classification:
The Respondent argued that the gauge was optional and not solely or principally for use with the machine tools under Heading 84.45/48. They emphasized that the gauge had multiple applications beyond the Speedhone Machine, as indicated in the pamphlet, enabling the operator to check bore diameter and geometry to close limits.

Interpretation of the Tariff Item:
The Tribunal analyzed whether the Air Line Gauge could be classified under Heading 84.45/48 as an accessory or part suitable for use solely or principally with the machine tools mentioned. They considered the conjunction "and" between "accessories" and "parts" and concluded that it could be read as "or" to avoid absurdity in extending the meaning of "accessories."

Decision and Rationale:
After reviewing the arguments and pamphlet evidence, the Tribunal held that the Air Line Gauge was not solely or principally for use with the machine tools, as it was optional and had general application. They denied the application of Accessory Rules due to the gauge's optional nature and general use capability. Consequently, the appeal for re-classification was dismissed.

This detailed analysis highlights the classification dispute, arguments for re-classification as an accessory, counter-arguments emphasizing the gauge's optional nature, the interpretation of the Tariff Item, and the Tribunal's decision based on the lack of exclusive use with the machine tools and the gauge's general applicability.