9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of a machine described as a "paver finisher" under Tariff headings 8429.20, 8429.19, or 8479.10
In this case, the primary issue revolves around the correct classification of a machine known as a "paver finisher." The appellants argue for classification under Tariff headings 8429.20 or 8429.19, considering it as a grader and a leveller with reference to Notification No. 59/87. On the contrary, the lower authorities classified the machine under Tariff Heading 8479.10, which pertains to "Machine and Mechanical Appliances having individual function, not specified or included elsewhere in this Chapter - machinery for public works building or the like." Analysis: The lower appellate authority justified the classification under Tariff Heading 84.79 by emphasizing the unique features and functions of the machine. The machine, described as a self-propelled paver finisher, was equipped with specific capabilities such as a 10-tonne capacity hopper, screed for ensuring flatness on uneven grounds, and adjustable laying-off width controls. Additionally, the machine was designed for road surfacing purposes, particularly for laying asphaltic concrete on runways. The authority concluded that the machine's design and functionality distinguished it from graders and levellers under Heading 8429.20, making it suitable for classification under the residuary Heading 8479.10 for machines not explicitly categorized elsewhere. In response, the appellant's representative argued that the lower authority overlooked the crucial levelling function of the machine, particularly highlighted by the screed mechanism. The screed, pivotal for maintaining flatness on uneven surfaces, was detailed to include various components like fixed and mobile plates, hydraulic operation, and vibrating sole plates for effective levelling. The representative stressed that levelling was a principal function of the machine, essential for road construction, and should not be disregarded. While acknowledging the machine's additional function of material delivery and spreading, the representative contended that the primary levelling function warranted classification under Tariff Heading 8429.20 for graders and levellers. Upon evaluating the arguments presented, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of identifying the machine's specific function for accurate classification. Recognizing Tariff Heading 84.79 as a residual category for unclassified items, the Tribunal noted that the machine's functions aligned more closely with the detailed specifications of graders and levellers under Heading 8429.20. Given the machine's dual functions of levelling and material delivery, the Tribunal concurred with the appellant's position, ruling in favor of classification under Tariff Heading 8429.20. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, overturning the lower authority's classification and providing relief to the appellants under the appropriate tariff heading.
|
