Motorised toy classification: residuary heading preferred over animal-toy heading, with Rule 3(c) applied to competing headings.

An electrically motor-driven galloping horse toy was treated as materially different from an ordinary toy and classified under the residuary heading for toys incorporating a motor rather than the heading for toys representing animals or non-human creatures. The classification dispute turned on the article's motorised character, which made the motor-based heading more appropriate on the facts. The interpretive principle in Rule 3(c) was also applied: where competing headings are equally arguable, classification falls under the heading occurring last in numerical order. The Commissioner (Appeals)' classification was therefore upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported galloping horse toy, fitted with an electric motor, was correctly classified under the residuary heading for other toys incorporating a motor or under the heading for toys representing animals or non-human creatures; and whether Rule 3(c) of the Rules for Interpretation required adoption of the last heading in numerical order.

Analysis: The imported article was found to be materially different from an ordinary toy because it was electrically motor-driven. On that basis, the residuary heading covering toys incorporating a motor was held to be more appropriate than the specific heading relied on by the Revenue. The principle in Rule 3(c) was also accepted, namely that where competing headings equally merit consideration, classification should fall under the heading occurring last in numerical order.

Conclusion: The classification adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---