Classification of hollow copper rods as hollow sections, not bars or rods, defeated the refund claim.

Hollow copper rods or bars were treated as distinct from solid copper bars and rods because the tariff description, commercial standards and harmonised nomenclature aligned such goods with hollow sections, tubes or pipes. The analysis emphasised that the relevant standards described commercial products rather than metallurgy in the abstract, and that later tariff treatment confirmed this classification approach. On that basis, the goods were not classifiable under the assessee's claimed entry for copper bars or rods, the residuary assessment was maintained, and the refund claim based on an alternative classification could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether hollow copper rods or bars were classifiable as bars or rods under the appropriate tariff entry or as hollow sections/tubes and pipes, and whether the refund claim based on a different classification was maintainable.

Analysis: The disputed goods were examined against tariff descriptions and commercial/product standards. The reasoning emphasised that the cited standards described commercial goods rather than metallurgy in the abstract, and that the relevant tariff structure and harmonised nomenclature placed hollow copper bars or rods with tubes, pipes, or hollow sections rather than with solid bars and rods. The goods were found to be distinct from bars and rods, and the later harmonised tariff treatment of such goods as hollow sections reinforced that they were not classifiable as copper bars or rods. As the departmental assessment under the residuary entry was upheld, the refund claim premised on classification under a different item could not succeed.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable as copper bars or rods under the assessee's claimed entry, and the assessment under the residuary item was upheld, against the assessee.

---