https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80349 Imported nylon lining material was held not to be a coated fabric because the invoice, chemical report and technical opinion did not establish a coating of the kind required by the tariff. Water-repellant treatment was treated as distinct from water-proofing, and in the absence of proof of coating composition the goods fell under Tariff Item 22(i)(b) as lining material and qualified for exemption. On the import-control issue, a correction in the bill of lading was accepted as a bona fide mistake, the goods were covered by a valid import licence, and the basis for confiscation failed; the confiscation order was therefore unsustainable and relief followed. en-us Wed, 21 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:27:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80349 Imported nylon lining material was held not to be a coated fabric because the invoice, chemical report and technical opinion did not establish a coating of the kind required by the tariff. Water-repellant treatment was treated as distinct from water-proofing, and in the absence of proof of coating composition the goods fell under Tariff Item 22(i)(b) as lining material and qualified for exemption. On the import-control issue, a correction in the bill of lading was accepted as a bona fide mistake, the goods were covered by a valid import licence, and the basis for confiscation failed; the confiscation order was therefore unsustainable and relief followed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80349