Specific tariff entry for net fabrics prevailed over general cotton fabric heading in classification dispute.

Round mesh mosquito netting fabric was held classifiable under Tariff Heading 58.04, because the specific entry for tulles and other net fabrics prevailed over the more general cotton fabric entry in Heading 52.06. The weaving machine used did not change that substantive classification. The earlier Calico Mills Tribunal decision was said not to govern because it had not considered relevant tariff provisions and the broader scheme of Sections XI and Chapters 50 to 63. Rule 96 MMM was treated as a special compounded levy provision, not a general basis for equating a roller-locking machine with a powerloom for all classification purposes.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether round mesh mosquito netting fabric was classifiable under Tariff Heading 58.04 or Tariff Heading 52.06; (ii) Whether the earlier Tribunal decision in the Calico Mills matter controlled the present classification dispute.

Issue (i): Whether round mesh mosquito netting fabric was classifiable under Tariff Heading 58.04 or Tariff Heading 52.06

Analysis: The fabric was accepted as woven, but the tariff scheme of Section XI and the structure of Chapters 50 to 63 showed that special woven fabrics were placed in a separate chapter. Heading 58.04 specifically covered tulles and other net fabrics, while Heading 52.06 was a general entry for cotton fabrics woven on looms other than handlooms. Applying harmonious construction, the specific entry for net fabrics was held to prevail over the general cotton fabric entry, and the machine used for weaving did not alter that result.

Conclusion: The fabric was classifiable under Tariff Heading 58.04 and not under Tariff Heading 52.06.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier Tribunal decision in the Calico Mills matter controlled the present classification dispute

Analysis: The earlier decision was held not to be binding because it had not noticed important provisions and the tariff scheme that materially affected classification. Rule 96 MMM was explained as part of a special compounded levy procedure and not as a provision equating a roller-locking machine with a powerloom for all purposes. Section Note 12(f) of Section XI was also held not to determine the classification issue because it operated across both Chapters 52 and 58.

Conclusion: The earlier Tribunal decision did not govern the present case.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the classification made by the lower authorities was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff scheme contains a specific entry for a particular type of fabric, that specific entry prevails over a more general entry, and a provision used for a limited procedural purpose cannot be treated as changing the substantive classification of goods.

---