Functional classification of a high-speed camera favoured Heading 90.08 over Heading 90.07 under customs tariff rules.

Functional character controlled classification of the Dynafax High Speed Camera under the Customs Tariff, and its resemblance to a cinematograph camera was treated as decisive for Heading 90.08. The shorter film length handled, the absence of an express catalogue reference to cinematographic use, and the lack of projection did not displace that functional similarity. In this technical classification context, ordinary popular meaning was not treated as controlling in the same way as with everyday expressions. The view taken at the Collector's Conference was also regarded as having no binding effect.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Dynafax High Speed Camera was classifiable as a cinematographic camera under Heading 90.08 of the Customs Tariff Act rather than under Heading 90.07.

Analysis: The determining consideration was the functional character of the instrument. On the material placed, the camera was found to be functionally akin to a cinematograph camera, and the absence of complete identity in construction, the short length of film handled, or the catalogue not expressly referring to cinematographic use did not displace that functional resemblance. The absence of projection was also held insufficient to deny the classification where the other essential features supported inclusion under the cinematographic heading. In a highly technical classification dispute, ordinary popular meaning was not treated as controlling in the same manner as with words of everyday use. The view taken at the Collector's Conference was regarded as having no binding effect on the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The Dynafax High Speed Camera was held classifiable under Heading 90.08 of the Customs Tariff Act and not under Heading 90.07.

---