Tariff classification burden of proof favors declared entry where vessel is not shown to be a pleasure craft.

In tariff classification disputes, the Revenue must prove that the goods fit the competing entry, and a declared classification cannot be displaced by conjecture or by reliance on a residual heading without affirmative evidence. Applying the structure of Heading 8901 and Heading 8903, the vessel was treated as one principally designed for transport of persons unless shown to be a yacht or other pleasure or sport vessel. Promotional literature and the absence of manufacturer invoices were insufficient to displace the declared description. The imported vessel was therefore not shown to fall under Heading 8903, and the classification under Heading 8901 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported vessel was correctly classifiable under Heading 8901 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as a vessel for transport of persons, or under Heading 8903 as a yacht or other vessel for pleasure or sport.

Analysis: The classification dispute turned on the proper identification of the goods from the bill of entry and supporting material, with the Revenue bearing the burden to justify departure from the declared classification. The reasoning rejected an approach that treated the explanatory notes as overriding the tariff structure, and instead applied the scheme of the headings and their tariff items. On that approach, Heading 8901 covered vessels principally designed for transport of persons, while Heading 8903 was confined to vessels for pleasure or sport. The record did not establish that the imported vessel fell within the specific enumerations or residual description in Heading 8903. Reliance on promotional literature and absence of manufacturer invoices was found insufficient to displace the declared description.

Conclusion: The imported vessel was not shown to fall under Heading 8903, and the declared classification under Heading 8901 could not be rejected. The appeal was therefore allowed and the impugned classification was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In classification disputes, the Revenue must discharge the burden of proving that the goods answer the competing tariff entry, and a declared classification cannot be displaced by conjecture or by resort to a residual entry without affirmative proof.

---