Commercial and functional classification of imported machinery upheld; writ interference refused absent perversity.

The imported hot blocker was treated according to its commercial and functional role, and not as a mere auxiliary handling device, because the rolling mill could not operate without it and the product marketed was hot rolled coils; on that basis, it was characterised as a coiling machine falling under the residuary tariff heading rather than lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery. Writ interference in customs classification was limited to cases of perversity, and a reasonably possible view by the customs authorities could not be disturbed simply because another classification was also arguable. The tribunal's classification was therefore upheld and no writ interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported hot blocker was correctly classified as a coiling machine under the residuary tariff heading instead of under the heading for lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery, and whether the writ court could interfere with the customs classification on the ground that the tribunal's view was perverse.

Analysis: The relevant tariff entry for lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery was construed in the light of the article's actual commercial and functional role. The machine was not shown to be merely an auxiliary handling device; rather, the petitioner's own earlier stand showed that the rolling mill could not operate without it and that the product manufactured and marketed was hot rolled coils. On that basis, the machine's real character was that of a coiling machine integral to production. The writ court's interference was confined to cases of perversity, and a reasonably possible classification adopted by the customs authorities could not be disturbed merely because another view was possible. The residuary heading applied only where no specific heading reasonably covered the goods.

Conclusion: The machine was rightly classified under the residuary heading and not under the heading for handling machinery. The tribunal's view was not perverse, and no writ interference was warranted.

---