Tariff classification follows binding precedent for materially identical goods; DTS-6D Sound Processor stayed under the accepted heading.

Imported DTS-6D Sound Processor goods were held classifiable in the same tariff heading as in an earlier binding Tribunal decision concerning materially identical equipment, which had treated the system as a sub-system of a cinematographic projector rather than a sound reproducing system. Because no distinguishing feature was shown, the appellate classification was sustained and the departmental challenge failed. The classification adopted by the importer therefore remained undisturbed, following the principle that materially identical goods must receive the same tariff treatment unless a relevant difference is established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported DTS - 6D Sound Processor was classifiable under the tariff heading adopted by the original authority or under the classification accepted by the appellate authority.

Analysis: The goods in dispute were found to be indistinguishable from the item considered in an earlier Tribunal decision concerning the same type of DTS - 6D system. That earlier classification had treated the equipment as a sub-system of a cinematographic projector rather than as a sound reproducing system. The earlier decision had also been upheld by the Supreme Court, and no distinguishing feature was shown in the present matter. On that basis, the appellate classification was held to be correctly adopted.

Conclusion: The classification accepted by the appellate authority was sustained and the departmental challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the importer's classification was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the goods are materially identical to items already classified in an earlier binding decision, the same tariff classification must follow unless a distinguishing feature is shown.

---