Classification of imported fabric as artificial fur cloth rejected after the material was found to be velvet, not fur-like cloth.

Imported fabric was examined under the import policy restriction permitting only artificial fur cloth against the REP licence. The decisive test was whether the material was an imitation of animal fur or had a fur-like resemblance; technical distinctions showed velvet and velveteen are separate from artificial fur cloth. The sample, surrounding material, and bill of entry description did not establish a fur-like character, and claimed trade usage was insufficient to treat velvet as artificial fur cloth. Applying ordinary trade understanding, the fabric was treated as velvet, not artificial fur cloth, so refusal to clear the goods was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported fabric was classifiable as "artificial fur cloth" and therefore admissible for import against the REP licence.

Analysis: The permissible import under the relevant import policy was only "artificial fur cloth", not all fabrics. The deciding test was whether the imported material was an imitation of animal fur or had a fur-like resemblance. Technical descriptions of fur-like fabrics, velvet, velveteen and plush showed that velvet and velveteen are distinct from artificial fur cloth. The sample and surrounding material did not indicate any resemblance to fur, and the description in the bill of entry was not conclusive. The claimed trade usage was also not sufficient to establish that velvet was understood as artificial fur cloth. Applying the commonsense and ordinary trade understanding of the item, the fabric was found to be velvet and not artificial fur cloth.

Conclusion: The imported fabric was not artificial fur cloth and the refusal to clear the goods under the REP licence was justified.

---