Residual tariff classification for stopper heads upheld; exemption notification for refractory bricks could not be extended to different goods.

Stopper heads were held classifiable under Heading 69.03 as residual refractory goods, because they were not refractory bricks, blocks, tiles or similar constructional goods covered by Heading 69.01/02. The exemption notification for special-shaped refractory bricks used as industrial furnace components did not extend to the imported stopper heads, since the concession was confined to specified goods under the relevant heading. The assessment under Heading 69.03 was therefore upheld, and the refund claim based on the notification failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported stopper heads were correctly classified under Heading 69.03 of the Customs Tariff Act rather than Heading 69.01/02; (ii) Whether Notification No. 242/76-Cus. dated 2-8-1976 applied to the imported goods.

Issue (i): Whether the imported stopper heads were correctly classified under Heading 69.03 of the Customs Tariff Act rather than Heading 69.01/02.

Analysis: The goods imported were stopper heads and not refractory bricks, blocks, tiles, or similar refractory constructional goods. Heading 69.01/02 covers heat-insulating and refractory constructional goods, while Heading 69.03 is the residuary heading for other refractory goods. On the nature of the goods, the classification adopted by the authorities was supported by the tariff description.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly assessed under Heading 69.03, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether Notification No. 242/76-Cus. dated 2-8-1976 applied to the imported goods.

Analysis: The notification granted concession only to refractory bricks of special shape or quality for use as component parts of industrial furnaces falling under Heading 69.01/02. The imported goods did not fall under that heading, and the concession was confined to bricks and not to other goods. The reference in the tariff to both bricks and blocks also showed that they were not treated as synonymous.

Conclusion: The notification did not apply to the imported stopper heads, and this issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment under the residual refractory goods heading was upheld and the refund claim based on the exemption notification failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification confined to specified goods under a particular tariff heading cannot be extended to a different commodity classified under another heading merely because it is used in an industrial furnace or has a special shape.

---