Classification of identical iron and steel goods turns on essential character and mechanical function, not machinery heading treatment

Identical iron and steel goods were classified by reference to their essential character and functional attributes. As they had no mechanical function and were not shown to be machine parts, the Tribunal followed its earlier ruling on the same goods and treated them as articles of iron and steel under Chapter 73 rather than parts of machinery under Chapter 84. The department failed to establish any material distinction from the prior decision, so Heading 7308.90 applied and the department's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disputed items were classifiable under Heading 7308.90 of Chapter 73 or under Chapter 84 as parts of machinery.

Analysis: The items were the same as those considered in the respondent's earlier case. In that earlier decision, the Tribunal had held that the goods were not machine parts because they had no mechanical function and were not classifiable under the chapter meant for machinery. The department did not substantiate any distinction in the present appeal. Following the earlier ruling on identical goods, the Tribunal held that the goods were articles of iron and steel falling under Chapter 73.

Conclusion: The goods were held classifiable under Heading 7308.90 and not under Chapter 84, and the department's appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Identical goods are to be classified according to their essential character and functional attributes, and where they do not possess mechanical properties or constitute machine parts, they fall under the tariff heading applicable to articles of iron and steel rather than the machinery chapter.

---