Tariff classification of tobacco machinery: "and" in the entry was read as "or", bringing the machine within the heading.

A tobacco cutting machine was held classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.59(2) because the entry for a machine for stripping and cutting tobacco leaf was construed disjunctively. Technical evidence showed stripping and cutting are separate processes performed at different stages and by different machines, and no single machine simultaneously performs both functions in the tobacco industry. Applying settled statutory interpretation, including Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the word "and" in the entry was read as "or" to give the provision workable meaning. On that construction, a machine capable of either stripping or cutting tobacco leaf fell within the heading, and the departmental classification was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether a tobacco cutting machine was classifiable under Tariff Heading 84.59(2) as a machine for stripping and cutting of tobacco leaf, and whether the word "and" in the entry could be read disjunctively to include a machine capable of either stripping or cutting.

Analysis: The relevant entry was construed in the light of the technical evidence showing that stripping and cutting of tobacco leaf are separate processes carried out at different stages and by different machines. The evidence also showed that no single machine could simultaneously perform both functions in the tobacco industry. Relying on settled principles of statutory interpretation, including the rule embodied in Section 13 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the word "and" in the tariff entry was read as "or" where that construction was necessary to give the provision a workable meaning. On that construction, the entry covered a machine capable of performing either of the two functions.

Conclusion: The imported tobacco cutting machine fell within Heading 84.59(2) and the classification adopted by the department was set aside.

---