Automatic machine classification requires substantial independence from manual intervention; partial automation was insufficient for exemption and OGL benefit.

A customs classification dispute concerning an imported noise testing machine for ball bearings turned on whether the equipment was truly "automatic". The machine was held not to qualify because substantial manual intervention remained in loading, inspection and sorting, so the claimed exemption and OGL benefit were denied. On the monetary consequences, confiscation was sustained because the import was outside the claimed licence and exemption position, but the penalty was set aside and the redemption fine reduced in view of the technical and bona fide nature of the classification controversy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported noise testing machine for ball bearings qualified as an "automatic" machine entitled to classification under the claimed heading and the corresponding exemption and OGL benefit; (ii) Whether, in the facts of the case, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were justified, and if so to what extent.

Issue (i): Whether the imported noise testing machine for ball bearings qualified as an "automatic" machine entitled to classification under the claimed heading and the corresponding exemption and OGL benefit.

Analysis: The decisive test was the degree of automation actually built into the machine. A machine that still requires crucial manual inputs, such as loading, inspection and judgment-based sorting, cannot be equated with a machine that performs the same function independently in an on-line production setup. The presence of automatic measurement features by itself was insufficient where the imported equipment did not dispense with manual operation to any substantial extent. The competing notification entries also showed a distinction between purely automatic items and those expressly described as automatic and semi-automatic, supporting a restrictive reading of the entry for automatic noise and/or vibration testers for bearings.

Conclusion: The machine did not qualify as an automatic noise and/or vibration tester for bearings and was not entitled to the claimed exemption or OGL clearance.

Issue (ii): Whether, in the facts of the case, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were justified, and if so to what extent.

Analysis: Since the import was not covered by the claimed exemption and licence position, confiscation was sustainable. However, the dispute was highly technical and involved a bona fide controversy on classification, which justified moderation of the monetary consequences. In that setting, the penalty was found unwarranted, and the redemption fine was considered excessive and reduced.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld, the penalty was set aside, and the redemption fine was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only on the monetary consequences, with penalty deleted and redemption fine reduced, while the classification and confiscation findings were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: For customs classification, a machine is "automatic" only if it substantially performs the relevant function independently without material manual intervention; the existence of partial automatic features does not suffice where crucial operational stages remain manual.

---