Classification of magnetic bedding turns on actual function, while circular applicability depends on factual verification.

Classification of magnetic mattress, pillow and quilt turns on their actual nature and function: mere movement of the sleeper or alleged magnetic/accupressure effects do not, without reliable evidence, convert bedding into massage apparatus, so the goods were not treated as massage apparatus on the materials before the Tribunal. The applicability of the Board circular on magnetic accupressure treatment systems depended on factual correspondence with the imported goods, and the absence of supporting evidence required fresh examination by the Commissioner. The matter was therefore sent back for reconsideration after factual verification and hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the imported magnetic mattress, pillow and quilt were classifiable as massage apparatus under Heading 9019.10 or as articles of bedding under Heading 9404.29; (ii) whether the Board circular on magnetic accupressure treatment system applied to the goods and required factual verification.

Issue (i): whether the imported magnetic mattress, pillow and quilt were classifiable as massage apparatus under Heading 9019.10 or as articles of bedding under Heading 9404.29.

Analysis: The classification turned on the actual nature and function of the goods. Massage, in the ordinary and medical sense, involves manipulation of the body by an external agency, and mere movement of the sleeper caused by the mattress structure does not amount to massage. The claimed magnetic effect was unsupported by reliable evidence and, even if assumed, did not convert the goods into massage apparatus. The accupressure feature also did not change that conclusion, because the mattress did not itself perform massage. On the materials before it, the goods could not be treated as massage apparatus merely because they were alleged to promote circulation or prevent bedsores.

Conclusion: The goods were not finally held to be classifiable as massage apparatus on the merits before the Tribunal.

Issue (ii): whether the Board circular on magnetic accupressure treatment system applied to the goods and required factual verification.

Analysis: The circular was binding on departmental officers, but its applicability depended on whether the imported goods were in fact the same as those described in the circular. The Tribunal found the factual correspondence uncertain, particularly because the circular relied upon evidence of bedsores prevention and technical literature concerning locally manufactured goods, while such evidence for the imported goods was lacking. The matter therefore required detailed factual examination by the Commissioner, including consideration of the scope of the circular and its possible application to prior imports.

Conclusion: The question of applicability of the circular was remitted for fresh factual determination by the Commissioner.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the dispute was sent back for reconsideration after factual verification and hearing the appellant.

---