Specific tariff entry prevails over generic heading; stapling machine classified as office machinery, and prior assessment was not res judicata.

Imported desk-type stapling machines with stapling capacity for 30 sheets were classified under the specific office-machine entry rather than the broader book-binding heading, because Heading 84.51/55(1) expressly covered perforating and stapling machines while Heading 84.32 was generic to book-binding machinery. The tribunal also held that an earlier appellate classification did not bind a later assessment, as res judicata does not apply to assessment proceedings, though prior decisions may be relevant. Resort to BTN was unnecessary. Classification under Heading 84.32 was rejected and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported stapling machine was classifiable under Heading 84.32 as book binding machinery or under Heading 84.51/55(1) as an office machine, and whether the earlier appellate classification could govern the present assessment.

Analysis: The catalogue described the goods as a desk type stapler with stapling capacity for 30 sheets of good quality paper and possible use as a tacker. Heading 84.32 covered book binding machinery, while Heading 84.51/55(1) specifically covered other office machines including perforating and stapling machines. On a comparison of the competing entries and the product description, the goods were found to answer the specific office-machine entry rather than the generic book-binding entry. The earlier classification order did not bind the revenue in a later assessment, since res judicata does not apply to assessment proceedings, though an earlier decision may be a relevant factor. Resort to BTN was also found unnecessary.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classifiable under Heading 84.51/55(1), and the claim for classification under Heading 84.32 failed. The appeal was therefore not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: In tariff classification, the more specific heading prevails over a broader or generic heading, and an earlier assessment order does not operate as res judicata in subsequent assessment proceedings.

---