Visible impregnation test governs fabric classification; waterproof-treated cotton fabric fell under Heading 52.07, not Heading 59.06.

Waterproof fabric treated only to make it water-resistant was not classifiable as an impregnated, coated or covered fabric under Heading 59.06 because the Explanatory Notes require a visible layer, coating or impregnation discernible to the naked eye. On the facts, the evidence did not establish any visible treatment and the weight of the substance used was not determinative. The fabric was therefore classified under Heading 52.07 as cotton fabric subjected to waterproofing without the aid of power, and the appeal succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the waterproof fabric manufactured by the appellant was classifiable under Heading 59.06 as an impregnated, coated or covered fabric, or under Heading 52.07 as cotton fabric subjected to waterproofing without the aid of power.

Analysis: Heading 59.06 corresponds to Heading 59.07 of the HSN, and the explanatory notes to that heading require that any impregnation, coating or covering must be visible to the naked eye. Fabrics impregnated or coated merely to make them waterproof do not fall under the impregnated fabric heading and are to be classified under the cotton fabric headings, namely 52.06 or 52.07, depending on whether power or steam is used. On the facts, the process adopted by the appellant resulted in waterproofing, and there was no reliable material showing a visible layer, coating or impregnation. The evidentiary material did not establish visibility of the treatment, and the weight of the substance used was not treated as determinative.

Conclusion: The fabric was not classifiable under Heading 59.06 and was correctly classifiable under Heading 52.07; the appeal succeeded.

---