Camera classification turns on presentation with micro-photographic components, not independent camera capability.

An imported camera body presented with an adaptor, cable release and microscope components was treated as part of a micro-photographic assembly rather than as a separate camera. Note 2 of Chapter 90 did not apply because a camera capable of independent use is not a part suitable solely or principally for micro-photographic apparatus, and Rule 2(a) did not alter the position where the article retained the essential character of a camera. However, the classification followed the actual presentation of the goods: the camera was offered together with the remaining components needed for temporary attachment to a microscope, showing it formed part of the micro-photographic apparatus. It was therefore classifiable under Heading 90.11/12, not Heading 90.07.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported Yashica camera body, presented along with other micro-photographic apparatus components, was classifiable under Heading 90.07 as a camera or under Heading 90.11/12 as a component of micro-photographic apparatus.

Analysis: The camera body was imported without a lens but with an adaptor and cable release, and was intended to function with the microscope assembly for microphotography. Note 2 of Chapter 90 did not assist the importer because a camera capable of independent use cannot be treated as a part suitable solely or principally for micro-photographic apparatus. Rule 2(a) also did not help because an incomplete camera retaining the essential character of a camera is classifiable as a camera. At the same time, the explanatory material for microphotographic apparatus covers a conventional microscope to which a conventional camera can be temporarily fixed by a simple attachment, and the camera is excluded from that heading only if separately presented. Here, the camera was presented with the remaining components for assessment, and the simultaneous presentation with the adaptor, cable release and microscope tube showed that it formed part of the microphotographic assembly.

Conclusion: The camera body was not separately classifiable under Heading 90.07 and was correctly treated as part of the micro-photographic apparatus under Heading 90.11/12. The appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a camera is imported as part of a micro-photographic assembly and is presented with components enabling temporary attachment to a microscope, it may be classified as part of the micro-photographic apparatus rather than as a separate camera, even if it is technically capable of independent camera use.

---