Tariff classification of quilt cover: competing expert opinions led to adoption of the assessee-favourable view under Chapter 63.

Imported quilt cover was treated as a made-up article under Chapter 63 because it was stitched across the width, left open on one side for filling, and supported by technical reports and expert opinions. Note 7 to Section XI was applied to distinguish made-up textile goods from knitted fabric, and the possibility that the article could later be destitched was not enough to defeat that classification. Where competing views on tariff classification were reasonably possible, the interpretation favourable to the assessee was adopted, resulting in classification under Heading 6302.10.90 rather than Heading 6001.92.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported quilt cover was classifiable as a made-up article under Heading 6302.10.90 or as knitted fabric of man-made fibre under Heading 6001.92.

Analysis: The imported goods were examined in the light of Note 7 to Section XI, which explains when textiles are treated as "made up" and also excludes certain piece goods assembled in layers. The decision turned on competing expert opinions from textile bodies and the departmental view. The records showed that the sample was stitched across the width, left open on one side for filling, and various technical reports supported treatment as a made-up quilt cover falling under Chapter 63. Where two opinions were possible on classification, the view favourable to the assessee was required to be adopted. The apprehension that the article could be destitched and used as fabric was not sufficient to displace the expert material supporting classification as a made-up article.

Conclusion: The quilt cover was held classifiable under Heading 6302.10.90 and not under Heading 6001.92, in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: In tariff classification, where competing expert opinions create reasonable doubt and two views are possible, the interpretation favourable to the assessee must be adopted.

---