Tariff classification of imported gaskets turns on the most specific entry, not interchangeability with motor vehicle parts.

Imported gaskets were considered for tariff classification between countervailing duty treatment under Item 34-A and a claim under Item 29 for internal combustion engine parts. The analysis treated classification as depending on the most specific and legally appropriate entry, noting that the goods had been assessed as gaskets under Heading 84.64 rather than as motor vehicle parts. It also stated that Item 29 covered internal combustion engines, not parts of those engines, and that the tariff contained no separate gasket heading. Item 68 was mentioned only as a residual entry and was not examined by the lower authorities.

---

---

Issues: Whether imported gaskets were correctly subjected to countervailing duty under Item 34-A of the Central Excise Tariff, or whether they could be classified under Item 29 as internal combustion engine parts.

Analysis: The goods were assessed in customs as gaskets under Heading 84.64, not as motor vehicle parts. The reasoning rejected interchangeability with motor vehicles as a basis for classification under Item 34-A, and treated the decisive question as whether the goods were more appropriately referable to internal combustion engines than to motor vehicles. Since the Central Excise Tariff contained no separate gasket heading, and Item 29 covered only internal combustion engines and not parts of such engines, the claim for classification under Item 29 was not accepted. Item 68 was noted as a residual entry, but it had not been in issue before the lower authorities.

Conclusion: The classification under Item 34-A was not interfered with, and the appeals were rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where competing tariff entries are available, classification turns on the most specific and legally appropriate entry, and a claim to a head covering only the principal machine cannot be extended to parts unless the tariff expressly so provides.

---