Electroplating copper wire did not amount to manufacture; lamp-part classification required proof of specific size, shape, and intended use.

Electroplating of copper wire, by itself, did not create a new commodity amounting to manufacture. Classification under Heading 85.39 as parts of electric lamps required the goods to be cut to size and shape and shown to be solely or principally intended for use in that lamp; a mere possible use of copper wire in running length was insufficient. The record also noted that the original classification view was undermined because the Assistant Commissioner acted without a show cause notice and without material showing the goods were identical parts of electric lamps. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether electroplating of copper wire amounts to manufacture and renders the product classifiable under Heading 85.39 as parts of electric lamps.

Analysis: The process did not, by itself, establish that a new commodity emerged merely because the wire underwent electroplating. Classification as parts of electric lamps could not rest on a possible use of copper wire in running length; the material had to be cut to size and shape and shown to be solely or principally intended for that lamp. The finding that the Assistant Commissioner proceeded without the basis of a show cause notice and without material to conclude that the goods were identical parts of electric lamps supported interference with the original classification view.

Conclusion: Electroplating of copper wire was not held to amount to manufacture for classification under Heading 85.39, and the appeal was dismissed.

---