Classification of coated interlining fabrics over Buckram supported lower duty rate under the exemption notification

Goods cleared in June 2003 were treated as LDPE powder coated interlining fabrics, not Buckram, because the manufacturing verification report showed a switch from starch-based stiffened fabrics to interlining fabrics from November 2002. The ER-1 description as Buckram was regarded as a mistaken entry and not conclusive where the departmental report supported the assessee's classification. On that basis, the goods were classified under Heading 5903 as textile fabrics impregnated or coated with plastic, making the lower duty rate under the exemption notification applicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods cleared during June 2003 were Buckram attracting duty at 16% ad valorem, or LDPE powder coated interlining fabrics eligible for the lower rate of duty under the applicable exemption notification.

Analysis: The determination turned on the actual process of manufacture and the nature of the goods during the relevant period. The verification report of the Jurisdictional Superintendent showed that, since November 2002, the respondent had stopped manufacturing starch based stiffened fabrics known as Buckram and had switched to LDPE powder coated interlining fabrics. The description in the ER-1 return as Buckram was treated as a mistaken description and was not accepted as conclusive when the departmental report itself supported the assessee's case. In the absence of any challenge to that report, the goods were treated as interlining fabrics classifiable under Heading 5903 as textile fabrics impregnated or coated with plastic.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be interlining fabrics and not Buckram, and the respondent was held entitled to the lower duty rate. The Revenue's appeal failed.

---