Specially designed air-conditioning parts were classified under the apparatus heading, not as aluminium tubes or general metal articles.

Imported aluminium extruded tubes with integrally attached fins were treated as specially designed components for automobile air-conditioning condensers, not as ordinary aluminium tubes. Their physical characteristics and trade literature excluded Heading 7608.10, while Heading 8419.90 was inapplicable because the goods were not machinery for treatment of materials by a temperature-change process. Heading 76.16 was also rejected because the goods were not general aluminium articles but parts meant for a specific apparatus. The goods were therefore classified under Heading 8415.90 as parts of air-conditioning machines, and the customs classification was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods, described as aluminium extruded tubes and claimed as parts of a condenser, were classifiable under Heading 7608.10, Heading 8419.90 or Heading 76.16, or were correctly classifiable under Heading 8415.90 as parts of air-conditioning machines.

Analysis: The goods were found to be hollow rectangular products with fins integrally attached and specifically bent, which ruled out classification as aluminium tubes under Heading 7608.10 in view of the tariff description and Note 1(e) of Chapter 26. The goods were admittedly meant for automobile air-conditioning condensers and were described in the invoice and product literature as automotive air-conditioning components. Heading 8419.90 was held inapplicable because the goods were not machinery or equipment for treatment of materials by a process involving change of temperature, and Heading 76.16 was also held inapplicable because the goods were not general aluminium articles but components specially designed for car air-conditioning use. Since the goods were parts intended for a specific apparatus, they fell within the heading covering that apparatus.

Conclusion: The imported goods were correctly classified under Heading 8415.90, and the appellant's alternate classifications were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The classification adopted by the customs authorities was upheld, and both appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods specially designed for use in a particular apparatus are classifiable under the heading covering that apparatus when the tariff description and product characteristics exclude other claimed headings.

---