Automatic data processing machine classification retained where a programmed unit remained independent despite working with a calorimeter.
An imported data processing unit supplied with a differential scanning calorimeter was held to retain classification as an automatic data processing machine under Heading 84.71 because it satisfied Chapter Note 5(A)(a): it could store programmes and data, be freely programmed, perform arithmetical computations, and execute processing programmes without human intervention. Note 5(B) did not apply because the unit itself was an ADP machine, not a machine merely incorporating or working with one. Note 4 of Section XVI was also inapplicable since the calorimeter and the data processing unit were separate, independent machines rather than a combination contributing together to one clearly defined function. Programming the unit to operate with the calorimeter did not change its tariff classification.
Issues: Whether the imported data processing unit, supplied along with a differential scanning calorimeter, was classifiable as an automatic data processing machine under Heading 84.71 or with the calorimeter under Heading 9027.90; and whether Note 4 of Section XVI and Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 84 displaced classification under Heading 84.71.
Analysis: The data processing unit satisfied the definition of an automatic data processing machine under Chapter Note 5(A)(a) of Chapter 84 because it could store programmes and necessary data, be freely programmed, perform arithmetical computations, and execute processing programmes without human intervention. Note 5(B) was held inapplicable because it excludes machines incorporating or working in conjunction with an automatic data processing machine and performing a specific function, whereas the imported unit itself was an automatic data processing machine. Note 4 of Section XVI was also found inapplicable because the import did not consist of a combination of individual machines intended to contribute together to one clearly defined function; the calorimeter and the data processing unit were separate and independent machines. Mere programming of the data processing unit to work with the calorimeter did not alter its classification.
Conclusion: The data processing unit remained classifiable under Heading 84.71 and not under Heading 9027.90; the classification adopted by revenue was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the imported data processing unit retained its independent identity as an automatic data processing machine and could not be shifted to the heading applicable to the calorimeter merely by reason of its programmed linkage with that equipment.
Ratio Decidendi: A standalone automatic data processing machine does not change classification merely because it is programmed to operate in conjunction with another machine; Note 4 of Section XVI applies only to a combination of machines contributing together to one defined function, and not to separate independent machines.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
