Customs tariff classification turns on the enacted scheme, not CCCN notes, for sand-and-cement mould residues.

Classification under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 must follow the tariff scheme actually enacted, and CCCN explanatory notes remain persuasive only where the statutory context is unchanged. On that approach, imported sand scrubber and lump breaker machinery used for broken mould pieces made principally of sand and cement were treated as falling outside Heading 84.59(1), with the Chapter 25 treatment prevailing over a mechanical reliance on explanatory notes. A procedural objection that the machines worked on broken pieces of moulds rather than moulds themselves was held insufficient to vitiate the proceeding, because the classification dispute remained materially the same on the facts before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported sand scrubber and lump breaker were correctly classifiable under Heading 84.56 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. (ii) Whether the proceeding was vitiated because the machines worked on broken pieces of moulds rather than on moulds themselves.

Issue (i): Whether the imported sand scrubber and lump breaker were correctly classifiable under Heading 84.56 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The classification had to be determined by the tariff scheme actually adopted in the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and not by mechanically importing the CCCN explanatory notes where the statutory context had materially changed. Heading 84.56 was adopted from the CCCN, but Chapter 25 was not carried over in the same form. The goods were concerned with broken pieces of moulds consisting principally of sand and cement, which were treated as falling within Chapter 25. On that basis, the explanatory note-based approach used to place the goods under Heading 84.59(1) could not prevail.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Heading 84.59(1); the appellate classification in favour of the respondents was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the proceeding was vitiated because the machines worked on broken pieces of moulds rather than on moulds themselves.

Analysis: The objection was treated as insufficient to invalidate the proceedings because the essential dispute on classification remained the same and the matter could be examined on the facts before the Tribunal. The distinction between moulds and broken pieces of moulds did not make the notice void.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the classification order in favour of the respondents stood affirmed, with the show cause notice dropped.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the tariff structure has materially changed, CCCN explanatory notes are only persuasive and cannot override the actual wording and scheme of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; goods comprised of sand and cement remnants from broken moulds may fall within Chapter 25 rather than under the machinery headings.

---