Rittal Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs - [2025] ARTA 609

Rittal Pty Ltd and Comptroller-General of Customs [2025] ARTA 609 (26 May 2025)
Applicant:Rittal Pty Ltd
Respondent: Comptroller-General of Customs
Tribunal Number: 2023/9236

Tribunal:General Member Darian-Smith
Place:Sydney
Date:26 May 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...............................[SGD].........................................
General Member Darian-Smith
Catchwords
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE – tariffs – competing tariff classifications – whether goods should be classified under tariff classification subheading 8538.10.90 or subheading 9403.20.00 – whether metal rack unit cabinets are “furniture” – decision affirmed
Legislation
Customs Act 1901 (Cth), ss. 273GA (1) (haaa), 163
Customs Regulation 2015 (Cth) r. 102-112, Schedule 6
Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth), s. 7, Schedule 2, Schedule 3
Cases
Becker Vale Pty Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2014] AATA 625
Becker Vale Pty Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2015] FCA 525
Chinese Food and Wine Supplies v Collector of Customs (1987) 72 ALR 591
Comptroller-General of Customs v Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd [2020] HCA 2; 270 CLR 494
Collector of Customs v Savage River Mines (1988) 79 ALR 258
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polaroid Australia Pty Ltd (1971) 46 ALJR 32
Re Gissing and Collector of Customs (1977) 1 ALD 144
Re Tridon and Collector of Customs (1982) 4 ALD 615
Time Consultants v Collector of Customs (1987) 16 FCR 449
Secondary Materials
Harmonized System Explanatory Notes
World Customs Organisation Opinion 940320/3
Statement of Reasons

This dispute concerns the tariff classification in Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 (Cth) (Customs Tariff Act) of three models of metal rack unit (RU) cabinets imported by the Applicant. The three RU cabinet models in question are referred to by the parties as PK175, RT175 and PK350.
The Applicant says that the three RU cabinet models are all of tariff classification 8538.10.90, which attracts a free rate of duty.
The Respondent made final and operative tariff classification decisions[1] that each of the three RU cabinet models are of tariff classification 9403.20.00, which attracts a 5% general rate of duty.
[1] Tribunal Hearing File, T-14.1, T-16.1, T-15.1 respectively. Copies can also be found in T1, commencing at pages 18, 32, 47. T16.1 is the substantive tariff advice decision under review by the Tribunal.
The parties agree, and the Tribunal accepts, that the Tribunal has no general jurisdiction to review a tariff classification decision made by the Respondent. However, as explained below, the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to review a decision to refuse a refund of duty.
Under section 273GA (1) (haaa) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) (Customs Act), the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a decision of a Collector under section 163 of the Customs Act in relation to an application for a refund, rebate or remission of duty.
Section 163 of the Customs Act provides for refunds of duty to be made “in such circumstances, and subject to such conditions and restrictions… as are prescribed.” The relevant circumstances and conditions are contained in the Customs Regulation 2015 (Customs Regulation), regulations 102-112. There is no controversy as to the compliance of the refund application with the regulations. The claimed refund circumstance is also agreed between the parties and is the circumstance prescribed in Schedule 6, item 6 of the Customs Regulation, which is where, “Duty has been paid on goods because of manifest error of fact or patent misconception of the law.”
Accordingly, the Applicant made a refund application[2] in relation to the duty paid on an import declaration of RT175 cabinets (RT175 cabinets or Goods), on the basis that the correct tariff classification of the Goods is subheading 8538.10.90 in Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act (subheading 8538.10.90) (and therefore had a free rate of duty). The refund application in relation to the goods was refused[3] by the Respondent (Reviewable Decision).
[2] Tribunal Hearing File, T28, page 388.
[3] Tribunal Hearing File, T29, page 404.
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine the tariff classification of the RT175 cabinets for the purpose of deciding whether the Reviewable Decision was correct. The parties agree that the issue before the Tribunal is whether the correct tariff classification for the RT175 cabinets is subheading 8538.10.90 (the Applicant’s position) or subheading 9403.20.00 in Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act (subheading 9403.20.00) (the Respondent’s position). The answer to that question will determine whether the decision by the Respondent to refuse the Applicant’s refund application was the correct decision.
The Applicant’s application for review is formally of the Respondent’s decision to refuse the refund, and indirectly of the internal review tariff classification decision at Tribunal Hearing File, T-16.1.
In practical terms, the Tribunal’s determination of the issues in relation to the RT175 cabinets will also answer the question as to the rate of duty applicable to the PK175 and PK350 cabinet models.
It is convenient to set out subheading 8538.10.90 and subheading 9403.20.00, together with other headings and subheadings in Schedule 3 (commonly referred to as the Tariff) of the Customs Tariff Act, referred to in the submissions to the Tribunal:
“8504 ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMERS, STATIC CONVERTORS) FOR EXAMPLE RECTIFIERS) AND INDUCTORS…
8535 ELECTRICAL APPARATUS FOR SWITCHING OR PROTECTING ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS, OR FOR MAKING CONNECTIONS TO OR IN ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS…FOR A VOLTAGE EXCEEDING 1000 VOLTS…
8536 ELECTRICAL APPARATUS FOR SWITCHING OR PROTECTING ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS, OR FOR MAKING CONNECTIONS TO OR IN ELECTRICAL CIRCUITS…FOR A VOLTAGE NOT EXCEEDING 1000 VOLTS…
8537 BOARDS, PANELS, CONSOLES, DESKS, CABINETS AND OTHER BASES, EQUIPPED WITH TWO OR MORE APPARATUS of 8535 OR 8536, FOR ELECTRICAL CONTROL OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY, INCLUDING…
8538 PARTS SUITABLE FOR USE SOLELY OR PRINCIPALLY WITH THE APPARATUS OF 8535, 8536 or 8537:
8538.10 -Boards, panels, consoles, desks, cabinets and other bases for the goods of 8537, not equipped with their apparatus:
8535.10.10 –- For programmable controllers       Free
8538.10.90 --- Other       Free
9401 SEATS (OTHER THAN THOSE OF 9402), WHETHER OR NOT CONVERTIBLE INTO BEDS, AND PARTS THEREOF…
9402 MEDICAL, SURGICAL, DENTAL OR VETERINARY FURNITURE…BARBERS’ CHAIRS AND SIMILAR CHAIRS…PARTS OF THE FOREGOING ARTICLES…
9403 OTHER FURNITURE AND PARTS THEREOF…
9403.10.00 -Metal furniture of a kind used in offices  5%
9403.20.00 -Other metal furniture  5%”
The Tribunal had before it a Tribunal Hearing File, comprised principally of the T-documents, together with a bundle of the Respondent’s Additional Documents for Hearing (Respondent’s Additional Documents).
The Applicant’s written contentions are comprised of the following documents:
(a) Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 24 April 2024 (Applicant’s SFIC);[4]
(b) Applicant’s Comments on the Respondent’s SFIC dated 19 July 2024 (Applicant’s Reply);[5] and
(c) Applicant’s Submissions on Questions of Law and Fact dated 19 March 2025 (Applicant’s Submissions).
[4] Tribunal Hearing File, Tab 2.
[5] Tribunal Hearing File, Tab 8.
The Applicant also relies on the two witness statements of Michael Mallia, the Managing Director of the Applicant, dated 5 April 2024 (First Mallia Statement)[6] and 15 July 2024 (Second Mallia Statement)[7] (collectively the Mallia Statements), together with the witness statement of Chaitanya Chigurupati dated 25 March 2024 (Chigurupati Statement).[8] Mr Chigurupati is the Director-Global Mechanical Materials Procurement for Tritium Pty Ltd (Tritium), which is the sole customer of the Applicant. Mr Mallia was available for cross examination at the hearing and was cross examined by Mr Northcote.
[6] Tribunal Hearing File, Tab 2, Attachment A.
[7] Tribunal Hearing File, Tab 7.
[8] Tribunal Hearing File, Tab 2, Attachment A.
The Respondent’s written contentions are comprised of the following:
(a) Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 5 July 2024 (Respondent’s SFIC);[9] and
(b) Respondent’s Submissions dated 18 March 2025 (Respondent’s Submissions).
[9] Tribunal Hearing File, Tab 3.
THE APPLICANT’S POSITION
The Applicant imports metal cabinets designed and constructed for use by Tritium as integral components of control and distribution systems for electricity used in charging electric vehicle batteries. The Chigurupati Statement says that the PK175 cabinets are built to Tritium’s design and specifications. Mr Chigurupati goes on to explain that the Goods:
“… are used specifically to house equipment for the conversion (rectification) and distribution of electrical energy. When connected to the overall system, the cabinets’ function is to house the power electronics (rectifiers) to receive AC electrical current from the primary grid to convert it to DC for the charging station to perform its function that provides fast DC power to charge electric vehicles …”
On 17 February 2023, the Applicant’s customs broker applied to the Respondent for Tariff Advance Ruling (TAR) on the tariff classification for the PKM RU cabinet. In TAR number 22986700,[10] the Respondent’s National Trade Advice Centre (NTAC) classified the goods under subheading 8538.10.90, which was the classification which had been suggested by the broker.
[10] Applicant’s SFIC, Annexure C.
The Applicant noted that TAR 22986700 was later voided by the Respondent “due to adjustment of conceptual error.” However, the Applicant’s contention is that there was no error made in the original decision by NTAC to classify the RU cabinets to subheading 8538.10.90.
The Applicant refers to the Respondent’s document entitled “Review of Tariff Advice 23009800”, issued on 17 July 2023,[11] in relation to the PK350 Rectifier Cabinet (RTA 23009800). The Respondent’s reasoning in support of the PK350 Rectifier Cabinet being an item of furniture to be classified in subheading 9403.20.00 is set out in some detail in RTA 23009800.[12] That reasoning is said by the Applicant to be defective for the reasons set out,[13] and to have wrongly formed the basis for the Respondent’s tariff classification decisions in relation to the other RU cabinet models, including the Goods.[14]
[11] Tribunal Hearing File, T-1, pages 18 - 26.
[12] Applicant’s SFIC, [16].
[13] Applicant’s SFIC, [17].
[14] Applicant’s SFIC, [18].
The Applicant describes the Respondent’s “defective reasoning” as resulting from an erroneous approach, described in the following terms:
“The principal error made by the Respondent in respect of identification of these goods for tariff classification purposes was that the cabinets were identified at the outset as articles of “furniture’. This approach was both self-serving and disingenuous, and failed to address the fundamental issues:
* for what purpose were the goods brought into existence, i.e., what are the goods designed and intended to be used for?
* who are the purchasers (importers) of the goods and what is done with the goods after importation?”[15]
[15] Applicant’s SFIC, [19].
The Applicant says that the “fundamental issues” identified by it were correctly addressed in TAR 22986700. That correct approach had the:
“…goods correctly classified in subheading 8538.10.90 as parts of “…cabinets…equipped with two or more apparatus of 8535 or 8536, for electric control or the distribution of electricity…” which are classified in heading 8537. The possibility that the goods might fall within heading 9403 as “furniture” was considered but rejected for the simple reason that the terms of heading 8538 and subheading 8538.10.90 provide a precise and accurate classification of the goods by application of Interpretation Rule 1 in Schedule 2 to the Customs Tariff Act.”[16]
[16] Applicant’s SFIC, [20].
The Applicant’s position is that the RT175 cabinets come within heading 8538 because they are “… CABINETS… EQUIPPED WITH TWO OR MORE APPARATUS OF 8535 OR 8536, FOR ELECTRICAL CONTROL OR THE DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY…” within heading 8537, and, because the Goods are “PARTS SUITABLE FOR USE SOLELY OR PRINCIPALLY WITH THE APPARATUS OF… 8537” they will accordingly come under heading 8538.
The Goods, in the condition in which they are imported, are said by the Applicant to be parts of electric control and distribution apparatus to which heading 8537 applies.[17] The Applicant says that the Mallia Statements and the Chigurupati Statement say that the Goods, in their completed state, contain a wide variety of the apparatus referred to in headings 8535 or 8536 and that it follows that if the RT175 Rectifier Cabinets were to be imported in their completed state, they would be classified within heading 8537.[18] For completeness, the Tribunal notes that although the Applicant’s correspondence with its broker dated 8 August 2023 suggests that it is “not disputed” by NTAC that heading 8537 would apply if the Goods were to be imported in a completed state,[19] that classification was squarely in dispute before the Tribunal.
[17] Applicant’s Reply, [8].
[18] Applicant’s Reply, [9] – [10].
[19] Tribunal Hearing File, T23.1, pages 345 – 349 at page 347.
THE RESPONDENT’S POSITION
The Respondent submits that the principles and approach to the task of arriving at the appropriate correct tariff classification for the Goods follows a settled legal path and that if the Tribunal follows the orthodox approach it contends for, it will be satisfied that subheading 9403.20.00 is the correct tariff classification for the Goods.
The Respondent says that the first task is to identify objectively the Goods in the condition they were imported in and as they would appear to an informed observer. The second task is to determine a classification in Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act.[20] The leading cases of Tridon and Collector of Customs[21] (Tridon), Chinese Food and Wine Supplies v Collector of Customs[22] (Chinese Food and Wine) and Time Consultants v Collector of Customs[23] (Time Consultants) contain the statements of principle which underpin the approach. Further, as the relevant tariff headings and other provisions need to be construed, there is no error in construing the tariff headings and other provisions before considering the characteristics of the goods.[24]
[20] Respondent’s Submissions, [14].
[21] (1982) 4 ALD 615.
[22] (1987) 72 ALR 591.
[23](1987) 16 FCR 449.
[24] Collector of Customs v Savage River Mines (1988) 79 ALR 258, 265.
Importantly, identification involves a practical wharf side task, which involves identification by reference to the objective characteristics of the goods as imported, and not by reference to the intentions of the overseas supplier or the importer.[25]
[25] Tridon at 620, [15]; Chinese Food and Wine at 599; Time Consultants at 462.
The practical wharf side identification task described in the case law stands in sharp contradistinction to the approach advocated for by the Applicant and embodied in the “fundamental issues” identified in the Applicant’s SFIC at paragraph [19] (extracted in paragraph [20] above). The Respondent says that the Applicant’s suggested approach is not consistent with the case law. In addition, the Respondent contends that the Mallia Statements and the Chigurupati Statement:
“…were intended to address the erroneous claimed statement of classification principles. The result is that the initial witness statements say very little about what the cabinets as imported are, or what features they have, but only refer to the post-importation use by Tritium.”[26]
[26] Respondent’s Submissions, [15].
The Respondent states that the identification of goods cannot be controlled by reference to Tariff terms, but they may assume importance where a Tariff term refers directly or indirectly to use, including by reference to “parts”. One looks to the objective potential uses of the goods as imported, rather than to the post-importation use by the importer.[27]
[27] Respondent’s Submissions, [16].
When determining the correct classification under Schedule 3 of the Customs Act, the applicable heading is determined first. Then the relevant subheadings are determined at each level until the applicable 8 figure classification, with its attached duty rate, is determined.[28]
[28] Respondent’s Submissions, [18].
Subsection 7(1) of the Customs Tariff Act provides, in relation to the tariff classifications set out in Schedule 3 to the Customs Tariff Act, that:
“The Interpretative Rules must be used for working out the tariff classification under which goods are classified.”
The Interpretative Rules are to be found in Schedule 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, and the relevant Rules 1 and 6 provide as follows:
”1. The titles of Sections, Chapters and sub-Chapters are provided for ease of reference only; for legal purposes, classification shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative Section or Chapter Notes, and, provided such headings or Notes do not otherwise require, according to the following provisions: …
6. For legal purposes, the classification of goods in the subheadings of a heading shall be determined according to the terms of those subheadings and any related Subheading Notes and, mutatis mutandis, to the above Rules, on the understanding that only subheadings at the same level are comparable. For the purposes of this Rule the relative Section and Chapter Notes also apply, unless the context otherwise requires.”
The Section Notes which are relevant are the Notes to Section XVI (Chapters 84 and 85) and the Notes to Chapter 94 are extracted at paragraphs [22] and [23] respectively of the Respondent’s Submissions. The former Notes include Note 2, which deals with the classification rules for parts of machines, and Note 3, which provides as follows:
“3. Unless the context otherwise requires, composite machines consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines designed for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions are to be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function.”
Also relevant is Note 5, which deals with the meaning of “machine” and reads:
“5. For the purposes of these Notes, “machine” means any machine, machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus or appliance cited in the headings of Chapter 84 or 85.”
The Respondent also refers in its submissions to the use, as an extrinsic aid, to the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes (HSEN).[29] The Harmonized System is a reference to the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System (1983) (Convention), to which Australia is a party. The Harmonized System is an annex to the Convention and is the source of some of the text which appears in the Customs Tariff Act. The technical committee responsible for the Harmonized System also prepared the initial version of the HSEN, which has been revised from time to time in accordance with the Convention.
[29] Respondent’s Submissions, [24] – [27].
The acceptance of the use of the HSEN as an extrinsic aid to the interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act has been specifically endorsed by the High Court in Comptroller-General of Customs v Pharm-A-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd,[30] when the Court determined:
“The Explanatory Notes are prepared and approved under the Harmonized System Convention as a guide to the interpretation of the Harmonized System. In consequence, they are available to be used in the interpretation of so much of the Tariff Act as transposes the text of the Harmonized System Convention.”[31]
[30] [2020] HCA 2, 270 CLR 494.
[31] [2020] HCA 2, 270 CLR 494, [58].
The Respondent noted that the term “parts” is not a defined term in the Customs Tariff Act, and that the Tribunal would be guided as the meaning of parts in the present case by the judgment of the High Court in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Polaroid Australia PtyLtd[32] (Polaroid).
[32] (1971) 46 ALJR 32.

The relevant passage from Polaroid is from the judgment of Gibbs J, and the passage incorporates the two tests (shown in italics) which have subsequently been adopted by the Federal Court and in the Tribunal as the definitive test of the term “parts” used in Tariff terms.[33] That passage reads:
” … Obviously a part is something which with others makes up a whole…One thing does not become a part of another simply because the latter thing cannot be put to proper use without the aid of the former, even if, in use, the two things are fixed together. In my opinion a film is not part of a camera nor is a bullet of a gun… The fact that the film pack and the picture roll are each designed to fit only one type of camera, which cannot be worked with any other type of photographic material, merely reinforces the view that the pack and the roll are essential aids to the use of the cameras but does not show that the pack or the roll is part of the camera itself. In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Fowler Rex (NSW) Pty Ltd (1967) 118 CLR 160 at 163, Owen J, held that the word” parts” … did no more than describe those things that in ordinary parlance would be described as spare parts for the various classes of goods mentioned. I take the same view of “parts” in item 38.”[34]
[33] See for example, Walterscheid Australia Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1988] FCA 20; 7 AAT 555 at [14] and the other cases cited at footnote 13 to Respondent’s Submissions, [28].
[34] (1971) 46 ALJR 32, 34 – 35.
The Respondent’s submissions in relation to the identification of the Goods are:
(a) It accepts the evidence in the Mallia Statements and the Chigurupati Statement that the Goods are made in India by the Applicant to Tritium’s design and specifications.[35]
(b) It accepts that the Goods are used by Tritium post-importation with “rectifier shelves” and other components installed in the cabinets, and that the finished product which Tritium produces by installing the components in the cabinets is described as a “rectifier cabinet” or as a “power unit”.[36]
(c) However, on the evidence, it contends that the Tribunal should find that the Goods could be used for a range of different end-uses (around the enclosure and protection of the installed components), due to the “nature of the cabinet as an outdoor electrical enclosure with a standard 19-inch rack system.”[37]
(d) “The RT175 cabinet should be objectively identified as an outdoor enclosure or cabinet, and more specifically as a 19-inch rack unit outdoor enclosure or cabinet.” Whilst the RT175 cabinet is suitable for the Tritium post-importation use, it would also be suitable for the installation of a wide range of electrical equipment in outdoor applications or on the factory floor.[38]
(e) On the other hand, the “RT175 cabinet should not be objectively identified as only a “part” for the finished RT175 Rectifier Cabinets produced by Tritium, because they lack features which dedicate them solely to that use.”[39] Even if the Tribunal were to be persuaded that the Goods should be identified as a “part” of the finished Tritium RT175 Rectifier Cabinet, that finding will not affect their tariff classification.[40]
[35] Respondent’s Submissions, [35].
[36] Respondent’s Submissions, [36].
[37] Respondent’s Submissions, [37] - [38].
[38] Respondent’s Submissions, [39].
[39] Respondent’s Submissions, [40].
[40] Respondent’s Submissions, [41].
The Respondent rejects the Applicant’s position (summarised in paragraph [22] above) that the correct tariff classification for the Goods is under heading 8538.
The Respondent says that the Applicant’s contention that heading 8538 is applicable fails at the “first step”, because the finished Tritium RT175 Rectifier Cabinets (completed rectifier units) are not classified under heading 8537.[41] That conclusion is reached because:
(a) The principal function of the completed rectifier units (described in the Chigurupati Statement extracted at paragraph [16] above) is performed by the rectifiers installed in the completed rectifier units. The First Mallia Statement identified (consistently with the Chigurupati Statement), that the primary function of the completed rectifier units “is to convert (rectify) and distribute electrical energy in DC form” and that the rectifier was the key component of the completed rectifier units;[42] and
(b) Rectifiers are “STATIC CONVERTERS (FOR EXAMPLE RECTIFIERS)” within the terms of heading 8504.[43]
[41] Respondent’s Submissions, [43].
[42] Respondent’s Submissions, [44].
[43] Respondent’s Submissions, [46].
The Respondent contends that the completed rectifier units are correctly classified under heading 8504, adopting the following line of reasoning:
(a) The goods which come under heading 8504 perform different functions from the function “… FOR THE CONTROL AND DISTRIBUTION OF ELECTRICITY” described in heading 8537.[44]
(b) A rectifier changes the form of electricity, but it does not carry out the function of the control and distribution via several channels of an existing form of electricity. The latter function “can be achieved by combinations of “two or more” of the switching, protection, and connection apparatus mentioned in headings 8535 and 8536.”[45]
(c) Headings 8535 and 8536 do not include rectifiers.[46]
(d) The completed rectifier units contain numerous components (in addition to the rectifier) with different functions and applicable headings;[47] and
(e) The finished rectifier cabinets “are a “composite machines consisting of two or more machines fitted together to form a whole and other machines designed for the purpose of performing two or more complementary or alternative functions” within the terms of Note 3 to Section XVI, which must “be classified as if consisting only of that component or as being that machine which performs the principal function”: which on the evidence are the installed RECTIFIERS which are specifically included in the terms of heading 8504.[48]
[44] Respondent’s Submissions, [47].
[45] Respondent’s Submissions, [47].
[46] Respondent’s Submissions, [47].
[47] Respondent’s Submissions, [48].
[48] Respondent’s Submissions, [49].
The Tribunal was taken by Mr Northcote to the Federal Court decision in Becker Vale PtyLtd v Chief Executive Officer of Customs[49] (Becker Vale), in which Yates J held that a composite machine, consisting of three joined electrical units, two of which had a function of control and distribution of electricity (heading 8537) and the third a transformer (heading 8504), was to be classified to heading 8504 applying Note 3. This outcome was reached because Note 3 required the composite machine to be classified as if it only consisted of the component performing the principal function of the composite machine. In Becker Vale, that principal function was the transformation of the voltage of electricity by the transformer. The transformer was within heading 8504 and not within heading 8537.[50]
[49] [2015] FCA 525.
[50] [2015] FCA 525, [45] – [55].
The Respondent submitted that the reasoning of the Federal Court in Becker Vale was binding on the Tribunal and should be applied mutatis mutandis to the present case, substituting the rectifier here for the transformer in Becker Vale. The Respondent went on to say:
“The evidence establishes that the principal function of the finished rectifier cabinets produced by Tritium is the rectification of electricity. The finished rectifier cabinets are clearly composite goods within Note 3. In these circumstances the finished rectifier cabinets must be classified to heading 8504 applying Note 3 and the terms of heading 8504, as required by Interpretative Rule 1, and as explained by Becker Vale. There would then be no occasion to further consider heading 8537 for the finished rectifier cabinet.”[51]
[51] Respondent’s Submissions, [53].
Having established that the completed rectifier units are within heading 8504, the Respondent contends that the Goods in their empty state as imported are not within the terms of heading 8538, “since they are not “PARTS SUITABLE FOR USE SOLELY OR PRINCIPALLY WITH THE APPARATUS OF… 8537”.[52]
[52] Respondent’s Submissions, [54].
The Respondent says it is further assisted in drawing this conclusion by referring to the HSEN description of parts which do fall within heading 8538:
“Subject to the general provisions regarding the classification of parts (see the General Explanatory Note to Section XVI), this heading covers parts of the goods of the three preceding headings.
The heading includes, for example, boards for switchboards, generally of plastics or metal, without their instruments, provided they are clearly recognisable as parts of switchboards.”[53]
[53] Respondent’s Submissions, [55].
The Goods are said not to be analogous to “boards for switchboards” and are not cabinets which are parts of goods within heading 8537. Nor do they have particular positions designed for switches or other apparatus of heading 8535 or 8536. Instead, the 19-inch RU configuration of the Goods can accommodate a wide range of electrical and other equipment of various tariff classification headings.[54]
[54] Respondent’s Submissions, [55].
Having established that heading 8504 applies to the completed rectifier units, the Respondent then argues that heading 8504 does not apply to the Goods themselves. That conclusion is reached because:
(a) The term “machines” in the chapeau to Note 2 is limited by Note 5 to machines or apparatus “cited in the headings of Chapter 84 or 85.”
(b) Although the completed rectifier units are classified in heading 8504 by the application of Note 3, the completed rectifier units are not a machine or apparatus cited in heading 8504.
(c) The Goods, being external to and much bigger than the rectifiers and other components installed within it, are not parts of the rectifier shelves or of any rectifier.
(d) The conclusion in (c) is supported by the application of the conventional tests of a “part” taken from Polaroid; and
(e) No other Chapter 85 headings (besides headings 8504 or 8537) could possibly apply to the Goods.[55]
[55] Respondent’s Submissions, [59], [61].
Having eliminated the application of any of the Chapter 85 headings to the Goods, the Respondent submits that heading 9403 is the correct tariff classification for the Goods.
The points raised by the Respondent in support of the application of heading 9403 “OTHER FURNITURE” to the Goods are:
(a) “Furniture” is not defined in the Tariff, and it takes its ordinary meaning in the context of heading 9403. “Other” means not furniture coming within headings 9401 or 9402.
(b) The Macquarie Dictionary definition of “furniture” includes “cabinets” as a recognised category of furniture.[56]
(c) The Goods are a lockable steel cabinet with front and back doors, falling within the ordinary meaning of both “cabinet” and “furniture”, and designed to be placed on the floor or ground in compliance with the requirement of Note 2 to Chapter 94.[57]
(d) The apparently specialised nature of the Goods as an enclosure for electrical equipment and components does not rule it out from being classified as furniture. The context of there being references to specialised or technical furniture items in heading 9402 and Note 1 to Chapter 94, support “furniture” taking a wide ordinary meaning.[58]
(e) The HSEN references for heading 9403 assists by indicating that the heading includes “furniture for special uses”[59]; and
(f) The Goods come within the terms of heading 9403 and are not excluded by any Section or Chapter Note from inclusion within that heading.[60]
[56] Respondent’s Submissions, [62].
[57] Note 2 to Chapter 94 provides: “The articles (other than parts) referred to in 9401 to 9403 are to be classified in those headings only if they are designed for placing on the floor or ground.”
[58] Respondent’s Submissions, [64].
[59] Respondent’s Submissions, [65].
[60] Respondent’s Submissions, [66].
The applicable subheading under heading 9403 is arrived at by excluding subheading “9403.10.00 -Metal furniture of a kind used in offices”, because the goods are adapted for outdoor use. Subheading “9403.20.00 -Other metal furniture” is the correct 8 figure tariff classification and carries an applicable duty rate.[61]
[61] Respondent’s Submissions, [67].
The Respondent says that it’s conclusion that the Goods come within subheading 9403.20.00 is consistent with Opinion 940320 of the World Customs Organisation (WCO) for similar goods. That opinion represents the classification arrived at by the WCO Technical Committee and is published for the guidance of WCO member nations for consistency on classification issues. The WCO Opinion is not binding on the Tribunal, but it is referred to as an indication that the Respondent’s conclusion as to the applicability of subheading 9403.20.00 is not “peculiar or unusual”.[62]
[62] Respondent’s Submissions, [69] – [70].
CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUES
While the parties agree that the first step in classifying the Goods is the identification of the Goods, the parties are fundamentally at odds about the approach to be adopted with respect to the identification of the Goods.
The Applicant has framed the identification task with a view to the fundamental issues identified by it at paragraph [19] of the Applicant’s SFIC. The legal basis for its view was set out in Mr Rodda’s correspondence with the Applicant’s customs broker dated 13 June 2023 and has been consistently maintained since then. The relevant passage from that correspondence reads:
“The first task is to identify the goods in a manner that is simple and objective. The starting point is the answer to the following questions:
1. For what purpose are the goods brought into existence, i.e., what are the goods designed and intended to be used for?
2. Who are purchasers (importers) of the goods and what do they do with the goods after importation?
My instructions are that the subject goods are metal cabinets designed and used for the sole purpose of housing the components of electrical control or electrical distribution apparatus. Such components include fuses, circuit breakers, switches, surge suppressors, relays, plugs, sockets and cables. The cabinets are imported fitted with rails or brackets upon which these components are to be mounted, with or without additional fixing or locating devices.”[63]
[63] Tribunal Hearing file, T1, pages 27 – 31 at page 28.
The Applicant’s Submissions, at paragraph [9], state that the Goods are to be identified in the condition in which they are imported,[64] and identification must be objective “having regard to the characteristics which the goods, on informed inspection, present.”[65] Then, at paragraph [10] of the Applicant’s Submissions, the Applicant contends:
“The term “informed inspection” has not been judicially defined but, as a matter of practicality and common sense, the term encompasses consideration (inter alia) of any of the following facts regarding the existence of the goods as an article of commerce (articles of commerce being any goods that are the subject of international trade):
* why were the goods brought into existence?
* who uses the goods?
* what are the goods used for?
* are the goods used in the condition in which imported, or are they subjected to a further process of manufacture following importation?”
[64] Citing Re Gissing and Collector of Customs [1982] AATA 119.
[65] Citing Tridon.
In his closing, Mr Rodda took the Tribunal to the photograph of the Goods which is attached to the Chigurupati statement, and, framing that photograph as a pictorial representation of what turns up at wharf for identification, said “that cannot be furniture”. That disarmingly simple proposition would be persuasive if the Tribunal accepted that the Applicant’s suggested approach to the identification process was the right one. I am not persuaded that it is.
The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that the Applicant’s suggested approach to identification is not supported by, and does not conform with, the well-established classification principles established by the case law including Becker Vale and that the Tribunal should confine itself to the conventional approach based on those principles.
The Tribunal in Becker Vale Pty Ltd and Chief Executive Officer of Customs,[66] a competing tariff classification case in many respects like this one, commenced its consideration with a statement of the applicable principles. Deputy President Constance summarised the principles as follows (footnoted references in square brackets):
[66] [2014] AATA 625.
“The following principles are applicable in determining the correct classification of goods.
(i)Classification under Schedule 3 of the Tariff Act is to be determined in accordance with the Rules set out in Schedule 2 [Customs Tariff Act s. 7(1)].
(ii)As a first step, the subject goods should be objectively identified in the condition in which they are imported; identification is not determined by the intention of the importer in importing the goods or of the manufacturer in producing them [Chinese Food and Wine at 599].
(iii)Visual inspection will not necessarily be sufficient to identify the goods; further evidence may be required “to ascertain the relevant characteristics of the goods”’ [Chinese Food and Wine at 599].
(iv)Identification of the goods “cannot be controlled by the descriptions of goods adopted in the nomenclature of the Tariff” [Tridon at 620].
(v)Evidence of how goods are described by those who trade in or use the goods may be relevant, but not conclusive, in identifying the goods [Tridon at 620].
(vi)In identifying the goods, reference may be had to their design features [Tridon at 621].
(vii)Once the goods have been identified it is necessary to match the goods as identified to the correct classification in Schedule 3.
(viii)“All the descriptive terms, both specific and generic, by which the goods may fairly be identified may be relevant to the classification of the goods within the tariff” [Tridon at 620].
(ix)In classifying the goods, evidence of the characteristics of the goods and/or the use to which the goods are to be put after importation may be relevant, depending upon the wording of the classification heading [Tridon at 621].”[67]
The Tribunal adopts this statement as a correct statement of the applicable legal principles.
[67] [2014] AATA 625, [5].
The Tribunal has considered the evidence before it as to the description of the Goods. That evidence includes materials in the T-documents[68] and Respondent’s Additional Documents[69], the Chigurupati Statement and the Mallia Statements.
[68] T6.3, page 112; T7.3, pages 118 – 120; T12, commencing page 162; T23.2, pages 350 – 354 and T28.1, page 395.
[69] Respondent’s Additional Documents, 4 (pages 49 – 52), 5 (pages 53 – 57).
The Tribunal accepts the evidence in the First Mallia Statement that the key components in the completed rectifier units are the rectifiers and in the Chigurupati Statement that the function of the Goods is to house the rectifiers (along with many other components).
The Second Mallia Statement shifts emphasis, in describing the components installed in the RT175 cabinets, away from describing the rectifier as the key component. Mr Mallia’s evidence in paragraph [11] of the Second Mallia Statement reads:
” The Rectifier Cabinets are fitted with a rectifier by Tritium as one of hundreds of individual components installed in the cabinet which, when assembly is complete, are identified as outdoor charging stations for electric vehicles.”
Under cross examination, Mr Mallia:
(a) accepted that rectifiers were the key component in the completed rectifier units.
(b) accepted that rectification was the principal function of the completed rectifier units, albeit with the qualification that the rectifiers can’t operate without all the other components.
(c) accepted that the Goods could be used for a range of other purposes including in the computer industry, the telecommunications industry and for railway signalling. He said there were limits to other applications for the Goods because they would be over-designed for some purposes and too expensive. and
(d) would not concede the proposition put to him that his evidence that the completed rectifier units “are identified as outdoor charging stations for electric vehicles” was “not quite right.” The Respondent submitted that Mr Mallia’s non-concession of this point should be accorded little weight, as the identification of the completed rectifier unit as a charging station or a charger was simply not factually accurate as a completed rectifier unit did not operate as either of these things. Although generally accepting Mr Mallia’s evidence, the Tribunal agrees with the Respondent on that point.

It follows from the evidence given by Messrs Mallia and Chigurupati, that the Tribunal rejects the Applicant’s submission that:
”Rectifiers are a component of the complete charging station but are of no greater significance than any of the other components of the complete charging station.”[70]
[70] Applicant’s Submissions, [14 (second dot point)].
Upon a practical wharf side inspection of the Goods, it seems clear that the objective characteristics of the Goods are that it is a lockable metal cabinet with a front and back door fitted with a 19-inch RU system. The fact that the Goods have been manufactured to the design and specifications of Tritium adds nothing further to the objective characteristics which can be seen on a visual inspection.
As to the objective identification of the Goods, I am satisfied that the description of the RT175 cabinet as a 19-inch rack unit outdoor enclosure or cabinet is correct. The Tribunal also finds that in addition to the post importation uses to which Tritium would put the Goods, the Goods would be suitable as an outdoor enclosure or cabinet which could be used to house and protect a wide range of electrical equipment (including of the types identified by Mr Mallia).
Having identified the Goods, it is then necessary to match the Goods as identified to the correct classification in Schedule 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. A step along the way to resolving this issue, is to determine the classification of the completed rectifier units.
The Tribunal finds that the completed rectifier units are properly classified within heading 8504, and not within heading 8537 as was contended for by the Applicant. The Respondent’s reasoning (outlined in paragraph [40] above), is correct.
The completed rectifier units are a composite machine, and the rectifiers are the key component in performing the principal function of the composite machine (which is the rectification of electricity). Note 3 to Section XVI requires the composite machine to be classified as if it only consisted of the rectifier. The reasoning of the Federal Court in Becker Vale (summarised at paragraphs [41] and [42] above) is right on point.
The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s conclusion that once it is determined that the completed rectifier units are classified within heading 8504, the Goods themselves are not within the terms of heading 8538, “since they are not” PARTS SUITABLE FOR USE SOLELY OR PRINCIPALLY WITH THE APPARATUS OF… 8537”. (Emphasis added).
The Tribunal also agrees with the Respondent that heading 8504 does not apply to the Goods, for the reasons which are summarised in paragraph [46] above. That leads the Tribunal to the conclusion that none of the Chapter 85 headings apply to the Goods.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the Goods are correctly classified within the heading 9403. The Respondent’s stated reasons why the Goods should be classified within heading 9403 “OTHER FURNITURE” and then within subheading 9403.20.00 (summarised in paragraph [48] above), are persuasive.
The Applicant submits that the Respondent’s case must fail because the Respondent has not adduced any evidence in support of the claim that the Goods are articles of furniture.[71] The Tribunal rejects that submission. The Tribunal notes that furniture is to take its ordinary English meaning in context, which, in the context of the references to specialised or technical furniture items in heading 9402 and Note 1 to Chapter 94, should be a wide meaning of that word.
[71] Applicant’s Submissions, [15].
CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The correct tariff classification of the Goods is within subheading 9403.20.00. The Applicant’s refund application was correctly rejected by the Respondent.
The Reviewable Decision should be affirmed.
Date of Hearing:  18, 19 March 2025
Date of Decision:  17 May 2025
Applicant’s Legal Representative:         Ian Rodda, Rodda Coburn & Co
Respondent’s Legal Representative:   Roger Northcote, Principal Lawyer Customs and Trade Law, Legal Services Group, Department of Home Affairs