Tariff classification follows essential moulding function, with flat press plates placed under the mould heading on a specific description test.

Tariff classification of specially hardened stainless steel press plates used in hydraulic presses turned on their essential moulding function: the majority held that moulds under heading 84.60 are not limited to conventional cavities, and preferred the more specific classification over the general stainless steel sheet-and-plate entry, so the goods fell under heading 84.60. On the review notice issue, the annexure identifying the relevant orders-in-appeal was treated as sufficient to bring the Bakelite Hylam imports within the scope of review, so the notice was held valid for those matters.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported press plates or flat moulds were classifiable as moulds under heading 84.60 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or as stainless steel sheets and plates under heading 73.15; (ii) Whether the review notice issued by the Government of India was validly issued in relation to the imports made by M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd.

Issue (i): Whether the imported press plates or flat moulds were classifiable as moulds under heading 84.60 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or as stainless steel sheets and plates under heading 73.15.

Analysis: The goods were technically described as specially hardened stainless steel press plates used in hydraulic presses for forming plastic laminates. The competing descriptions were tested against the tariff structure, especially Chapter 73, Section XVI, and heading 84.60. The majority held that moulds under heading 84.60 are not confined to conventional hollow cavities, and that the press plates performed the function of moulding the plastic laminate into its final form. Applying the principle that the more specific description prevails and giving weight to the technological function and the benefit of doubt, the majority preferred heading 84.60 over the more general sheet-and-plate classification.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under heading 84.60, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the review notice issued by the Government of India was validly issued in relation to the imports made by M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd.

Analysis: The notice, though not addressed by name in every instance, contained an annexure identifying the relevant orders-in-appeal relating to the imports made by M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd. The majority treated the annexure as sufficient to show that those orders were included within the scope of review and found no fatal procedural defect in the notice.

Conclusion: The review notice was treated as validly covering the imports made by M/s. Bakelite Hylam Ltd., in favour of the Revenue on this limited procedural question.

Final Conclusion: The majority decision set aside the lower appellate classification under heading 73.15 and affirmed classification of the imported goods as moulds under heading 84.60, while also treating the review notice as covering the Bakelite Hylam matters.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, goods must be placed under the most specific heading that fits their essential function and character; where the goods perform the function of moulding artificial plastic materials, they may fall under heading 84.60 even if they are physically flat plates, and any ambiguity is resolved in favour of the assessee.

---