9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (6) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classifiable under Heading 52.07 are exempted from duty if made without the aid of power, and there is no dispute that the appellant did not employ power in its manufacture. 2. The notice issued to the appellant proposed classification of the fabric as an impregnated, coated or covered fabric classifiable under Heading 5906.90. After hearing the manufacturer and considering the cause shown, the Collector passed an order dropping the proceedings. After describing the process of the manufacture, he said on visual examination of the sample of the fabric, "I do not find any layer formation but the basic structure of the fabrics is quite visible". The department appealed this order to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the opinion that to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be classifiable under this heading. It specifically provides that fabric in which the impregnation, coating or covering cannot be seen or can be seen only on account of a resulting change in the colour is excluded to cites as examples of such excluded fabrics, garments impregnated with substances, designed solely to render them creaseproof, mothproof, unshrinkable or waterproofing. The note includes as an example of fabrics falling under Heading 59.07 "fabrics coated with wax." 5. Headings 52.06 and 52.07 of the tariff are for cotton fabrics woven on looms other than the handloom and subject to bleaching, mercerizing, dyeing, printing, waterproofing, shrinkproofing, organdieproofing or any two or more of these processes. Heading 52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cts the goods amounts to impregnation. The description of impregnation in the Fairchild's Dictionary of Textiles corresponds closely to the process that the appellant undertakes. However the notice refers to the waterproof fabrics manufactured by the appellant. The Commissioner also refers to the waterproof fabrics. There is no allegation in the notice, or finding by the Commissioner, that the impregnation to which the fabrics was subjected was for any other purpose than providing waterproofing. Examples of other use of these fabrics in circumstances in requiring their coating has not been cited. We have therefore necessarily to conclude that the impregnation of the fabrics by the appellant resulted in waterproofing. 7. In addition, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
