Reclassification for refund requires contemporaneous evidence; declared computer classification stood when no proof supported a printing-machine claim.

Imported goods described in the bill of entry as a complete computer could not be reclassified for refund purposes as a typesetting machine or aid to printing without cogent contemporaneous evidence supporting the altered description. The importer had assessed and cleared the goods as declared, and no catalogue or similar material was produced before the lower authorities to establish the alleged printing function. Certificates relied on at the appellate stage were not accepted because they had not been placed before the original authorities. In the absence of proof, the declared classification was accepted and the refund claim based on reclassification failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods, described in the bill of entry as a complete computer, could be reclassified for refund purposes as a typesetting machine or aid to printing under the claimed tariff heading.

Analysis: The goods were declared by the importer as a complete computer in the bill of entry and had been assessed and cleared on that basis. No catalogue or comparable contemporaneous material was placed on record to show that the imported goods performed the function later attributed to them. Certificates relied upon by the importer were not produced before the lower authorities and could not be relied upon at the appellate stage. In the absence of cogent evidence, the declared description was accepted and the refund claim based on a different classification was not substantiated.

Conclusion: The claim for reclassification failed and the rejection of refund was upheld.

---