Composite machinery classification: essential accessories and actual functions determine notification benefit, not separate invoicing or optional descriptions.

Imported machinery and its necessary attachments were treated as a composite article for customs classification where, taken together, they could perform the essential functions contemplated by Notification No. 49/78-Cus. Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule supported treating assembled or disassembled goods as complete articles, and the actual functions performed were the controlling consideration rather than any asserted degree of technical accuracy. Accessories supplied with the machines were also regarded as compulsorily supplied and integral to the main equipment when essential to its working, even if separately invoiced or described as optional in supplier literature. The notification benefit and classification adopted by the lower appellate authority were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported measuring machines, along with their attachments and accessories, were covered by Notification No. 49/78-Cus. as articles capable of performing the essential functions described in the notification; (ii) Whether the accessories supplied with the machines satisfied the conditions of compulsory supply and no separate charge so as to be treated as part of the main equipment.

Issue (i): Whether the imported measuring machines, along with their attachments and accessories, were covered by Notification No. 49/78-Cus. as articles capable of performing the essential functions described in the notification.

Analysis: The relevant test was whether the goods imported as a whole could be treated as a complete or finished article for classification purposes. Under Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Schedule, goods assembled or disassembled are to be treated as complete articles. The crucial inquiry was whether the imported equipment, taken with the relevant attachments, could perform the essential functions specified in the notification. The degree of accuracy suggested by technical opinion was not treated as decisive, because the notification did not prescribe a subjective standard of high accuracy. The functions actually performed by the equipment were the controlling consideration.

Conclusion: The imported machines, taken with their necessary attachments, were covered by the notification and the classification adopted by the lower appellate authority was correct.

Issue (ii): Whether the accessories supplied with the machines satisfied the conditions of compulsory supply and no separate charge so as to be treated as part of the main equipment.

Analysis: The conditions under the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 were read harmoniously with the tariff interpretation rules. If the imported parts were essential for the machine to perform its intended functions and were supplied with the machine, they were to be regarded as compulsorily supplied. Separate invoicing or a formal optional description in supplier literature did not by itself exclude the accessories from the main equipment, because commercial invoicing practice and the composite nature of modern machinery had to be taken into account. On the facts, the accessories were integral to the working of the machine.

Conclusion: The accessories formed an integral part of the imported machines and satisfied the relevant conditions for inclusion with the main equipment.

Final Conclusion: The lower appellate authority's view on classification and notification benefit was sustained, and the challenge by the Department failed.

Ratio Decidendi: For customs classification, imported machinery and its necessary accessories are to be treated as a single composite article when the accessories are essential to the machine's designated functions, and separate invoicing does not by itself prevent such treatment.

---