Accessories treatment for imported punches and dies fails where separate supply documents show they are interchangeable tools.

Imported punches and dies were not treated as accessories of the main machine because they were supplied under a separate bill of lading, separate invoice and separate value, so the Accessories (Condition) Rules were not met. On classification, the Tribunal relied on the packing list and the nature of use to find that the goods were not confined to a single operation but could be used at different stages and sizes of work. Applying the distinction between functional and dimensional interchangeability, it held that the items were interchangeable tools. The claim for accessory treatment failed, and the appellants' claimed tariff classification was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported punches and dies were entitled to treatment as accessories of the main machine and whether they were classifiable as interchangeable tools rather than under the claimed tariff heading.

Analysis: The imported punches and dies were supplied under a separate bill of lading, separate invoice and separate value, so the conditions for applying the Accessories (Condition) Rules were not satisfied. The remaining question was their proper tariff character. On the facts, the Tribunal found from the packing list and the nature of use that the imported items were not confined to a single operation but were capable of use in different stages and sizes of work. Applying the distinction between functional and dimensional interchangeability, the Tribunal held that the goods were interchangeable tools.

Conclusion: The claim to benefit of the accessories rules failed and the goods were held to be interchangeable tools not entitled to the classification claimed by the appellants.

---