Classification under Heading 98.06 upheld, but Chapter 82 exclusion denied exemption for specially designed circular saw blades.

Circular saw blades specially designed for a cutting machine were treated as parts of machinery under Heading 98.06 because that heading applies with overriding effect when its conditions are met, even though the goods also answer to Chapter 82 descriptions. However, the exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus. was denied because the notification expressly excluded articles specified in Chapter 82, and that exclusion had to be given effect on a harmonious reading. The goods' status as non-general-use parts did not remove them from the Chapter 82 exclusion. Classification under Heading 98.06 was upheld, but the exemption claim failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether circular saw blades, though falling within Chapter 82, were correctly classifiable under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery of Chapter 84. (ii) Whether such goods were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987, or stood excluded by the proviso relating to articles specified in Chapter 82.

Issue (i): Whether circular saw blades, though falling within Chapter 82, were correctly classifiable under Heading 98.06 as parts of machinery of Chapter 84.

Analysis: Heading 98.06 covered parts of machinery, equipment, appliances, instruments and articles of Chapters 84, 85, 86, 89 and 90, and the Chapter Note to Chapter 98 gave the heading overriding effect where its conditions were satisfied. The goods were accepted as specially designed for the cutting machine and as parts of machinery falling under Chapter 84, and the Tribunal held that such goods could validly be classified under Heading 98.06 notwithstanding that they were also described as tools under Chapter 82.

Conclusion: Yes. The goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 98.06.

Issue (ii): Whether such goods were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 69/87-Cus. dated 1-3-1987, or stood excluded by the proviso relating to articles specified in Chapter 82.

Analysis: The notification granted exemption to specified goods but excluded, inter alia, articles specified in Chapter 82. The Tribunal applied a harmonious construction and held that the exclusion of Chapter 82 articles had to be given effect even though the goods were also treated as parts under Heading 98.06. The fact that the goods were not parts of general use did not remove them from the Chapter 82 exclusion, and the exemption claim therefore failed.

Conclusion: No. The goods were not eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 69/87-Cus.

Final Conclusion: The classification under Heading 98.06 was upheld, but the exemption claim failed, so the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods satisfy the conditions of Heading 98.06 and are also articles specified under Chapter 82, the exemption notification must be construed harmoniously and the Chapter 82 exclusion must be given effect, even if the goods are otherwise classifiable as parts of machinery.

---