Residuary tariff classification upheld for a laboratory fermenter used for cell growth, not sterilisation or analytical testing.

Imported research laboratory fermenters were treated as apparatus for cell growth and cultivation, with sterilisation only an initial preparatory step, so they did not fall under the tariff description for medical, surgical or laboratory sterilisers. They were also not classifiable as instruments or apparatus for analysis of physical or chemical phenomena, because their function was to safeguard and grow biological specimens rather than to perform analytical testing. In the absence of a more specific applicable heading, classification under the residuary heading 84.79 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods, described as a research laboratory fermenter, were classifiable under sub-heading 8419.20 as medical, surgical or laboratory sterilisers, under sub-heading 9027.80 as instruments or apparatus for analysis of physical or chemical phenomenon, or under the residuary heading 84.79.

Analysis: The goods were found to be apparatus for growth and cultivation of cells, with sterilisation being only an initial step in their use. They did not answer the description of sterilisers under sub-heading 8419.20. Sub-heading 9027.80 was also held inapplicable because the goods were not merely instruments for analysis of physical or chemical phenomena, but were designed for safeguarding and growing biological specimens. In the absence of a more specific competing heading, the residuary classification was accepted.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified under heading 84.79 and not under sub-headings 8419.20 or 9027.80.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the classification adopted by the customs authorities was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods do not fall within a specific tariff description and their dominant function is not covered by a claimed heading, they may be classified under the appropriate residuary heading.

---