Tariff classification depends on credible product literature and evidence of function; unsupported claims and certificates were rejected.

Tariff classification of a pulse echo fault locator was upheld under Heading 85.08 because the catalogue did not show it to be a measuring or checking instrument, and it was not established as equipment for detecting ionising radiations. Classification of circuit breaker spares under Heading 85.18/27(1) was also sustained because the claim was unsupported by the bill of entry, invoice, catalogue, or a technical write-up; a certificate alone was insufficient. The document stresses that tariff classification must rest on credible product literature or comparable evidence showing the nature, function, and end use of the goods.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Pulse Echo Fault Locator was classifiable under Tariff Heading 9030.39 or under Tariff Heading 85.08. (ii) Whether the spares of circuit breakers were classifiable under Tariff Heading 85.18/27(3) or under Tariff Heading 85.18/27(1).

Issue (i): Whether Pulse Echo Fault Locator was classifiable under Tariff Heading 9030.39 or under Tariff Heading 85.08.

Analysis: The catalogue did not show that the instrument was a measuring or checking instrument, and its stated function was only to locate faults in cables and cable systems. The material also did not support the contention that it measured or detected alpha, beta, gamma, X-ray, cosmic or other ionising radiations so as to fall within the cited portion of Heading 90.30.

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Heading 9030.39 was rejected and the Revenue classification was upheld; the appeal failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the spares of circuit breakers were classifiable under Tariff Heading 85.18/27(3) or under Tariff Heading 85.18/27(1).

Analysis: The claim was not supported by the bill of entry, invoice or any catalogue. The document relied upon was only a certificate and not a technical write-up showing the nature, function and use of the goods. In the absence of proper documentary support, the claimed classification was not established.

Conclusion: The classification under Tariff Heading 85.18/27(3) was not accepted and the Revenue classification was upheld; the appeal failed on this issue.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals were rejected, and the departmental classifications were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Tariff classification must be supported by credible product literature or comparable evidence showing the nature, function and end-use of the goods; unsupported assertions and mere certificates are insufficient.

---