Cross-examination and technical evidence are essential where classification turns on product testing and expert reports.

Denial of cross-examination of the departmental Chemical Examiner, together with non-consideration of the assessee's contrary technical material, was treated as a serious procedural deficiency where the dispute depended on the product's technical character and the reliability of test results. Fair adjudication required that the departmental expert be made available for confrontation, or that independent technical opinion be obtained, and the assessee's technical evidence had to be considered. The order in original was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration with effective cross-examination and evaluation of the technical evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether denial of cross-examination of the departmental Chemical Examiner and non-consideration of the assessee's technical material vitiated the adjudication and warranted remand.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the technical character of the product and the correctness of the departmental test results. Since the assessee had sought cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner and had produced contrary technical opinions and test reports, fair adjudication required that the departmental expert be made available for confrontation or that appropriate independent technical opinion be obtained. Denial of such opportunity, in the facts, amounted to a serious procedural deficiency affecting the reliability of the adjudication.

Conclusion: The order in original was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration with effective opportunity of cross-examination and consideration of the assessee's technical evidence.

---