Tariff classification of wire mesh machinery depends on technical proof of metal-working or commodity-production function.

A roll take up machine used for rolling and cutting welded wire mesh was examined for classification under Heading 84.45/48 and Heading 84.59(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act. The material on record did not show, through catalogue or technical evidence, that it functioned as a machine-tool for working metals or that it was designed for the production of a commodity. Mere rolling and cutting of mesh, even when used with other plant machinery, was treated as insufficient to satisfy either tariff description. The claimed classification was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the roll take up machine was classifiable under Heading 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff Act as a machine-tool for working metals. (ii) Whether the machine was classifiable under Heading 84.59(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act as a machine designed for the production of a commodity.

Issue (i): Whether the roll take up machine was classifiable under Heading 84.45/48 of the Customs Tariff Act as a machine-tool for working metals.

Analysis: The machine was described as one used for rolling welded wire mesh and cutting it. No catalogue, technical write-up, or other technical material was produced to show that it actually worked on metal in the sense required by the heading. On the material available, the machine did not satisfy the ingredients of a machine-tool for working metals.

Conclusion: The machine was not classifiable under Heading 84.45/48.

Issue (ii): Whether the machine was classifiable under Heading 84.59(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act as a machine designed for the production of a commodity.

Analysis: The record showed only that the machine rolled and cut welded wire mesh and worked in conjunction with other machines in the plant. Mere rolling and cutting of mesh did not amount to production of a commodity, and the claim remained unsubstantiated in the absence of supporting technical evidence.

Conclusion: The machine was not classifiable under Heading 84.59(ii).

Final Conclusion: The classification claimed by the importer was rejected and the departmental view was upheld, leaving the appeal dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A machine that merely rolls and cuts welded wire mesh, without technical evidence showing that it functions as a machine-tool for working metals or as a machine designed for production of a commodity, does not qualify for the claimed tariff headings.

---