Brass tube classification turned on consistent import documents and specifications, supporting duty under the tariff item.

Imported goods described across the purchase order, supplier confirmation, import documents, invoice and letter of credit as seamless brass tubes were classified as brass tubes rather than hollow brass rods. The specifications showed a wall thickness far below the internal diameter, which was inconsistent with the claimed rod classification on the record before the Tribunal. The definition of hollow rod and the earlier decision cited by the importer did not assist because the transaction documents consistently treated the goods as tubes. Classification under Item 26A of the Central Excise Tariff was upheld, with countervailing duty applied accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were brass tubes assessable to countervailing duty under Item 26A of the Central Excise Tariff, or hollow brass rods classifiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff.

Analysis: The purchase order, supplier confirmation, import document, invoice and letter of credit all described the goods as seamless brass tubes. The specifications also showed a wall thickness much lower than the internal diameter, which was inconsistent with the claimed classification as hollow rods on the material placed before the Tribunal. The relied-upon definition of hollow rod and the earlier decision cited for comparison did not assist the appellants because the goods in the present case were consistently described and treated as tubes throughout the transaction documents.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly treated as brass tubes and not as hollow brass rods; classification under Item 26A was upheld against the assessee.

---