Specific tariff description governs classification of relays, excluding treatment as parts of apparatus.

Relays specifically described under the applicable tariff heading must be classified according to that express description and not treated as parts of apparatus merely because they operate within an apparatus. The tariff scheme also showed that when parts were intended to be covered, the legislature used separate headings for that category. On that reasoning, the relays were classified as apparatus and not as parts of apparatus, and the appellant's classification claim failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether relays manufactured by the appellant were classifiable as apparatus themselves or as parts of apparatus.

Analysis: The relays were specifically described under the relevant tariff heading. Where goods are specifically named in the tariff, they cannot be treated as parts merely because they may function within an apparatus. The reasoning adopted was that the legislature separately refers to parts in other tariff headings when that category is intended.

Conclusion: The relays were held to be apparatus and not parts of apparatus, and the appellant's claim failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A product specifically described in the tariff is to be classified according to that specific entry and not as a part of apparatus in the absence of a corresponding tariff description.

---