https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92811 Section Note 1(j) of Section XVI controlled the tariff dispute because it excludes Chapter 83 articles from Section XVI, so electrical laminations could not be taken to Heading 85.04 merely because they were designed for transformers. The goods were treated as electrical stampings and laminations of base metal under Heading 83.12, which specifically covered their description. Intended end use did not override the express tariff exclusion, and the cited precedents were distinguished because they involved different section notes and chapters. The classification therefore followed the specific heading and exclusion scheme rather than the claimed transformer-parts description. en-us Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 05 Nov 2011 12:35:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92811 Section Note 1(j) of Section XVI controlled the tariff dispute because it excludes Chapter 83 articles from Section XVI, so electrical laminations could not be taken to Heading 85.04 merely because they were designed for transformers. The goods were treated as electrical stampings and laminations of base metal under Heading 83.12, which specifically covered their description. Intended end use did not override the express tariff exclusion, and the cited precedents were distinguished because they involved different section notes and chapters. The classification therefore followed the specific heading and exclusion scheme rather than the claimed transformer-parts description. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92811