Tariff classification of bobbins turns on material composition, not textile machinery use, where section notes exclude such supports.

Section Note 1(c) to Section XVI excludes bobbins, spools, cops, cones, cores, reels and similar supports of any material from Heading 84.48. The interpretative note therefore required classification of the disputed bobbins by their constituent material, not as parts of textile machinery. Rule 3(c) was rejected, and Rule 2(b) was treated as the applicable interpretative rule. Because the goods were predominantly aluminium and no separate specific nomenclature covered them, classification under the appropriate residual heading based on material was upheld. Prior assessment of similar goods of another manufacturer was treated as irrelevant to correct tariff classification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the bobbins, consisting of a central aluminium pipe with laminated plastic flanges and plastic bushings, were classifiable as parts of textile machinery under Heading 84.48 or under the appropriate heading based on their constituent material.

Analysis: Section Note 1(c) to Section XVI excludes bobbins, spools, cops, cones, cores, reels and similar supports of any material from that section. The interpretative note to Heading 84.48 likewise indicates that such goods stand excluded and are to be classified according to their constituent materials. On the facts, the goods were predominantly made of aluminium, and where no separate specific nomenclature existed for such supports, classification under the appropriate residual heading based on material was held to be correct. The contention based on Rule 3(c) was rejected, and Rule 2(b) was treated as the applicable interpretative rule. The fact that similar goods of another manufacturer may have been assessed differently was held to be irrelevant to correct tariff classification.

Conclusion: The bobbins were not classifiable as parts of textile machinery under Heading 84.48 and were correctly classified under the heading applicable to their constituent material. The classification adopted by the departmental authorities was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the tariff entry for textile machinery parts did not cover the disputed bobbins, and the classification based on their material composition was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff section note specifically excludes bobbins and similar supports from a machinery heading, classification must follow the constituent material of the goods rather than their use as machine accessories.

---