Classification of imported wool goods depended on proof, and mere spools were insufficient to support confiscation and penalty.

Imported goods were examined for classification as wool yarn or wool waste, with the dispute turning on whether the department had proved misdeclaration. The department failed to support a wool yarn classification by chemical test, expert examination, or trade evidence, while the adjudicating authority itself noted that the goods were irregular in length and not shown to be usable only for weaving. Mere presence of spools was held insufficient to establish classification in the absence of corroborative evidence. On the stated facts, confiscation and penalty were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were correctly classifiable as wool yarn or as wool waste, and whether confiscation and penalty on the basis of the alleged misdeclaration were sustainable.

Analysis: The department did not substantiate the proposed classification of the goods as wool yarn by any chemical test or other expert examination. The adjudicating authority's own finding was that the goods were not uniform in length and could not be solely used for weaving, and that they could not be categorically treated as regular original woollen yarn. Mere presence of spools was held insufficient to determine the classification in the absence of evidence showing trade understanding or expert support. The earlier Tribunal view on similar facts was followed.

Conclusion: The goods were not proved to be wool yarn, and the order of confiscation and penalty could not be sustained.

---