Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the imported printing and tubing machine, along with the auto sewing line, was classifiable as a machine designed for production of a commodity under Heading 84.59(2), or whether the printing and tubing machine was correctly classifiable under the residuary Heading 84.59(1).
Analysis: The machines were found to be two separate machines, described separately in the manufacturer's literature and invoice, with independent functions, separate controls, and no common base or common control. The printing and tubing machine produced only tubing, which was an intermediate product and not a ready-to-use commodity. The expression "commodity" in Heading 84.59(2) was construed in a limited sense and not as a synonym for goods in general. Since the machine by itself did not produce a commodity in that sense, and the set was not shown to be an inseparable complete system, the residuary entry was held applicable to that machine.
Conclusion: The printing and tubing machine was correctly classifiable under Heading 84.59(1), while the auto sewing line remained under Heading 84.59(2); the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification under Heading 84.59(2), the machine must itself be designed to produce a ready-to-use commodity in the limited sense intended by the heading, and a separate machine performing only an intermediate stage of manufacture is classifiable under the residuary entry if it is not part of an inseparable complete system.