https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102509 Imported coated fabric was held classifiable under sub-heading 5903.90, not 5407.44, because the Customs House Chemical Examiner reported that the coating was visible to the naked eye. The note rejected reliance on the Textile Committee's contrary view, as it was based on a subjective visual test and lacked cogent support. In classification disputes, the departmental Chemist or Chief Chemist's report is to be preferred over outside opinions, and mere majority opinion does not determine tariff classification. The importer was entitled to benefit of doubt where the departmental report supported its stand, and the adverse classification was unsustainable. en-us Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:38:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102509 Imported coated fabric was held classifiable under sub-heading 5903.90, not 5407.44, because the Customs House Chemical Examiner reported that the coating was visible to the naked eye. The note rejected reliance on the Textile Committee's contrary view, as it was based on a subjective visual test and lacked cogent support. In classification disputes, the departmental Chemist or Chief Chemist's report is to be preferred over outside opinions, and mere majority opinion does not determine tariff classification. The importer was entitled to benefit of doubt where the departmental report supported its stand, and the adverse classification was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 24 Jun 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102509