Customs tariff classification of coated fabric favoured the importer where departmental chemical evidence supported visible coating.

Imported coated fabric was held classifiable under sub-heading 5903.90, not 5407.44, because the Customs House Chemical Examiner reported that the coating was visible to the naked eye. The note rejected reliance on the Textile Committee's contrary view, as it was based on a subjective visual test and lacked cogent support. In classification disputes, the departmental Chemist or Chief Chemist's report is to be preferred over outside opinions, and mere majority opinion does not determine tariff classification. The importer was entitled to benefit of doubt where the departmental report supported its stand, and the adverse classification was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported coated fabric was classifiable under sub-heading 5903.90 or under sub-heading 5407.44 of the Customs Tariff Act.

Analysis: The Chemical Examiner of the Customs House gave a categorical report that the coating was visible to the naked eye. The reference to the Textile Committee was not supported by any cogent reason, and the Committee itself noted that visibility to the naked eye was only a subjective visual test. In classification matters, the report of the Departmental Chemist or Chief Chemist is to be preferred over the opinion of outside agencies, and the product could not be classified merely on a count of majority opinions. The benefit of doubt was also required to be extended where the departmental report supported the importer. The similarity of the goods with those imported by another concern further supported the same classification.

Conclusion: The fabric was correctly classifiable under sub-heading 5903.90, not under sub-heading 5407.44, and the classification adopted against the importer was unsustainable.

---