Composite tool classification under the customs tariff upheld for imported boring bar and cutting blades; confiscation and fine sustained.

Imported boring bar and fitted cutting blades, described and examined as a complete set for use in boring machine tools, were treated as a composite article under the Customs Tariff. Rule 2(a) requires unassembled or disassembled articles to be classified as complete articles, and Rule 3(b) directs classification by the component giving the essential character where a composite article is involved. Because Heading 82.05 specifically covers interchangeable tools for machine tools, including boring tools, the goods could not be split for separate classification under other headings. The departmental assessment was therefore upheld, and the challenge to confiscation and fine also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported boring bar and cutting blades were classifiable separately under Heading 84.45/48 and Heading 82.06, or as a composite tool under Heading 82.05; and whether the confiscation and fine could be sustained on that classification.

Analysis: The imported goods were described and examined as a complete set consisting of a boring bar with fitted cutting blades intended for use in boring machine tools. Rule 2(a) of the Rules for Interpretation of the Customs Tariff treats unassembled or disassembled articles as complete articles, while Rule 3(b) requires classification according to the component giving the essential character where a composite article is concerned. Heading 82.05 specifically covers interchangeable tools for machine tools, including boring tools, and therefore directly answers the description of the imported goods. The goods could not be split for separate assessment under different headings when they functioned as one composite article. On that basis, the department's view that the goods were correctly treated as a single dutiable article was accepted, and the challenge to confiscation and fine also failed.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 82.05 as a composite interchangeable tool, and the appellant's classification claim was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on the merits, and the departmental assessment, confiscation, and fine were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A composite imported tool set must be classified as a single article under the tariff heading specifically covering its essential character and description, rather than by splitting its constituent parts under different headings.

---