Tariff classification of imported price labellers turns on primary function, with the specific labelling heading prevailing over a general description.

Imported hand-operated price labellers that printed price and logo, generated self-adhesive labels, cut them to size and affixed them were classified by primary and essential function as labelling machinery under heading 8422.30, not as hand stamps or similar devices under heading 9611.00. Applying the commercial parlance test and the rule that the more specific tariff description prevails over a general one, the classification under heading 9611.00 was rejected. As the exemption under Notification No. 20/99 depended on classification as a labelling machine, the notification benefit followed once heading 8422.30 applied, and the denial of exemption was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported price labellers were classifiable under heading 8422.30 or heading 9611.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, and (ii) whether the goods were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 20/99.

Issue (i): Whether the imported price labellers were classifiable under heading 8422.30 or heading 9611.00 of the Customs Tariff Act.

Analysis: The imported article was a hand-operated labelling machine which printed the price and logo, generated a self-adhesive label, cut it to size, and affixed it at the targeted site. Its primary and essential function was labelling, while the stamping or printing aspect was only secondary. Heading 8422.30 specifically covered machinery for labelling, whereas heading 9611.00 covered independently operated hand stamps and similar devices. Applying the commercial parlance test and the principle that the more specific description prevails, the goods were more appropriately classified under heading 8422.30.

Conclusion: The classification under heading 9611.00 was rejected and the goods were held classifiable under heading 8422.30, in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 20/99.

Analysis: The exemption depended upon the goods being classifiable as labelling machines under the relevant tariff heading. Once the goods were held to fall under heading 8422.30, the basis for denial of the notification benefit disappeared.

Conclusion: The denial of Notification No. 20/99 was set aside, in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the appeals were allowed by holding the imported goods to be classifiable under heading 8422.30, with the consequential tariff and exemption benefit flowing therefrom.

Ratio Decidendi: For tariff classification, the goods must be classified according to their primary and essential function, and where competing headings are available, the more specific description prevails over the more general one.

---