Tariff classification of mortar grinders depends on design and intended use, while bowl classification required fresh adjudication.

Tariff classification of imported mortar grinders turned on the scope of Headings 84.56 and 84.59(2), which require the machine to fall within the specific description and, for Heading 84.59(2), to be designed for production of a commodity. The catalogue showed multiple uses and did not establish exclusive design for commodity production, so Heading 84.59(2) and Heading 84.56 were held inapplicable and the grinders remained classifiable under Heading 84.59(1). The mortar and pestles could not be finally classified on the existing record because the earlier finding rested on an incorrect factual assumption, so that issue was remitted for fresh decision after evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported mortar grinders were classifiable under Heading 84.56 or Heading 84.59(2) instead of Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff. (ii) Whether the mortar and pestles were to be classified separately or treated as parts of the grinders.

Issue (i): Whether the imported mortar grinders were classifiable under Heading 84.56 or Heading 84.59(2) instead of Heading 84.59(1) of the Customs Tariff.

Analysis: The classification depended on the scope of the tariff headings and, for Heading 84.59(2), on whether the machine was designed for the production of a commodity. The catalogue showed that the grinders had multiple uses and were not designed exclusively for producing a commodity, even though the appellants used them for trituration in the manufacture of homoeopathic medicines. Heading 84.56 was also held inapplicable.

Conclusion: The grinders were correctly classified under Heading 84.59(1), and the appellant failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the mortar and pestles were to be classified separately or treated as parts of the grinders.

Analysis: The appellate authority had proceeded on an incorrect factual assumption regarding separate assessment of the bowls. Since the record did not contain a proper finding on the classification of the bowls, the matter required reconsideration after giving the appellant an opportunity to adduce evidence.

Conclusion: The classification of the bowls was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh decision, in favour of the appellant on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The tariff classification of the grinders was sustained, while the dispute regarding the bowls was reopened for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: For classification under the relevant tariff entry, the design and intended character of the machine are material, and an article with multiple uses is not brought within a heading meant for machines designed for the production of a commodity merely because it is used for that purpose in a particular trade.

---