Import policy interpretation rejects artificial fur claim; velvet goods fell outside REP licences and confiscation was upheld.

Imported goods declared as artificial fur cloth were examined as velvet fabrics, with expert opinion relying on weave structure to distinguish them. The importers did not seek cross-examination of the expert, and the licensing authorities, after consulting the Textile Commissioner, clarified that the goods were velvet and not eligible under the REP licences issued under Appendix 17 of the Import Policy 1985-88. Under the policy's clarification and interpretation provisions, the C.C.I.E.'s view prevailed. The additional material produced by the importers did not displace the expert and official clarification, and it did not relate to samples from the actual consignments. The goods were therefore treated as outside the licences and confiscation under the Customs Act was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether velvet imported and declared as artificial fur cloth was covered by the REP licences issued under Appendix 17 of the Import Policy 1985-88 and, if not, whether confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified.

Analysis: The imported samples were examined by an expert who opined that they were velvet fabrics and not artificial fur cloth, the distinction being based on weave structure. The appellants did not seek cross-examination of the expert to test the basis of that opinion. The licensing authorities, after consulting the Textile Commissioner, also clarified that the goods were velvet and not eligible for import against the REP licences, and under the policy provisions relating to clarification and interpretation, the C.C.I.E.'s view was to prevail. The additional material relied upon by the appellants was found not to displace the expert and official clarification, and in any event did not relate to samples from the imported consignments.

Conclusion: The goods were not covered by the licences and the confiscation order was upheld.

---