https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74774 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. en-us Mon, 26 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jun 2011 18:27:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74774 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. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 26 Dec 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=74774