Classification of imported machinery as a single plant failed where goods were cleared and assessed piece-meal, denying exemption benefits.

Combination machinery intended to work together may be classified by the function performed under Note 4 of Section XVI and Note 7 of Chapter 84, with residuary Heading 8479 applying only where no specific heading covers that function. Here, the imported machines and components for crowns and caps were cleared through separate ex-bond Bills of Entry, were described and assessed piece-meal as individual machines, and the procedure under Public Notice No. 91/87 was not followed. On that record, the goods could not be treated as a complete plant, and the earlier assessment could not be reopened after such delay. The exemption under Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. was therefore not available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods, cleared under separate ex-bond Bills of Entry, could be treated as a single plant for manufacture of crowns and caps and classified under Heading 8479.89 for the benefit of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus.

Analysis: The imported items were a combination of machines and components intended to work together in the manufacture of crowns and caps. Under Note 4 of Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985, a combination of machines intended as a whole to perform a clearly defined function is to be classified according to the function performed. Note 7 of Chapter 84 likewise requires classification by principal purpose, and where no specific heading covers that function, the residuary Heading 8479 applies. However, the record showed that the goods were not presented and assessed as a complete plant at the relevant stage, the procedure under Public Notice No. 91/87 was not followed, and the items had been described and cleared piece-meal as individual machines. In those circumstances, the correctness of the earlier assessment as a single plant could not be reopened at that distance of time.

Conclusion: The goods were not entitled to be reclassified as a single plant for the purposes of exemption, and the denial of the benefit of Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. was upheld.

---