Textile classification and exemption relief fail when a later departmental test cannot override the earlier Textile Committee report.

Classification of imported textile goods was examined against Notification No. 36/2003-Cus, which applied only to goods under sub-heading 5407 61. The lower authorities had reclassified the goods under 5407 69, but the original Textile Committee report supported the importer's claim that the goods were fabric containing textured polyester filaments. A later departmental test report from the Deputy Chief Chemist, used to support reclassification, was not backed by the record and was contrary to the administrative guidance favouring reliance on the Textile Committee for the relevant textile test. The reclassification and denial of exemption were therefore unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were correctly classifiable under heading 5407 6190 so as to deny exemption under Notification No. 36/2003-Cus, and whether the later test report of the Deputy Chief Chemist could displace the earlier Textile Committee report.

Analysis: The benefit of the exemption notification was confined to goods classifiable under sub-heading 5407 61, while the lower authorities had adopted classification under 5407 69. The records showed that the original textile test did not discredit the importer's claim that the goods were fabric containing textured polyester filaments. The later departmental test relied upon for reclassification was not supported by the record, and the procedure followed was contrary to the administrative guidance requiring reliance on the Textile Committee for the relevant textile test. In these circumstances, the later departmental report could not override the earlier test result, and the resulting denial of exemption lacked legal support.

Conclusion: The reclassification and denial of exemption were unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed.

---