Specific tariff classification for photocopier parts prevails over a general heading, and exemption fails when the entry is not listed.

A rear cover forming part of a semi-automatic document handler for a photocopier was treated as an accessory of photocopying apparatus, so Heading 90.09 and sub-heading 9009.90 were regarded as the more specific tariff entry than Heading 84.79, applying the principle that a specific description prevails and Chapter Note 2(a) to Chapter 90. On that classification, the goods fell outside Notification No. 69/87 because Heading 90.09 was not listed in its exemption table, so the claimed exemption was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported rear cover, being a part of the semi-automatic document handler attached to a photocopier, was classifiable under Heading 84.79 or under Heading 90.09 with sub-heading 9009.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; and (ii) whether the goods were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 69/87.

Issue (i): Whether the imported rear cover, being a part of the semi-automatic document handler attached to a photocopier, was classifiable under Heading 84.79 or under Heading 90.09 with sub-heading 9009.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Analysis: The goods were described as a rear cover forming part of a semi-automatic document handler, and the admitted position was that the document handler was an accessory to be attached to a photocopying machine. Heading 90.09 specifically covered photocopying apparatus and sub-heading 9009.90 covered parts and accessories of photocopying apparatus. Applying the tariff interpretative rule that the more specific description must prevail, and reading it with Chapter Note 2(a) to Chapter 90, the classification under Heading 90.09 was held to be more specific than Heading 84.79. The reliance placed on the HSN Explanatory Notes and on the assertion of individual function did not displace the specific tariff entry and chapter note.

Conclusion: The goods were classifiable under Heading 90.09 with sub-heading 9009.90 and not under Heading 84.79.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 69/87.

Analysis: Since Heading 90.09 was not included in the table annexed to Notification No. 69/87, goods classifiable thereunder could not claim the exemption. The classification under the specific tariff entry therefore necessarily excluded the claimed benefit.

Conclusion: The goods were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 69/87.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order in appeal was set aside, with the classification and denial of exemption under the customs tariff upheld.

---