Composite machine classification fails where separately identifiable plant items are imported for use together in one processing facility.

Imported machinery and related items intended for a gypsum processing plant were not classifiable as a single machine under Heading 84.59(2) merely because they were to be used together. The goods remained separately identifiable machines and articles, including items of general use, and the tariff scheme did not treat the assortment as one machine designed for producing a commodity. Section Note 3 to Section XVI on composite machines did not apply because the items did not constitute a composite machine performing one principal function. The classification claim under Heading 84.59(2) therefore failed, and reassessment and refund were not available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported machinery and related items, taken together for setting up a gypsum processing plant, were classifiable under Heading 84.59(2) as machines and mechanical appliances designed for the production of a commodity.

Analysis: Chapter 84 covers machinery and mechanical appliances, and Heading 84.59(2) applies to machines designed for the production of a commodity. The imported goods consisted of several separately identifiable machines and articles, some specifically named in the tariff and some of general use such as exhaust fans. The fact that the goods were intended to be used together in a plant did not make the entire assortment a single machine falling under the heading. Section Note 3 to Section XVI concerning composite machines did not assist the appellants because the goods did not constitute a composite machine performing one principal function in the manner required by the tariff scheme.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Heading 84.59(2); the claim for reassessment and refund failed.

---