JUDGMENT : The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether Cupro Bemberg Staple Fibre imported by the appellant was exempt under Notification issued in exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 on 2nd August, 1976 which exempted Viscose Staple Fibre and Polynosic Staple Fibre falling within the Chapter 56 of the 1st Schedule of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 when imported into India. The goods imported by the appellant were tested by the Cochin Customs House and were found to be synthetic staple fibre of Cellulose origin (regenerated cellulose other than polynosic and viscose). The claim of the appellant was rejected by the Assistant Collector but it was accepted by the Collector in appeal. In further appeal by the Department before the Tribunal the appeal was allowed and the claim was rejected. The Tribunal after considering various literatures produced by the appellant found that cupromonium fibres even though was regenerated cellulose but it was a different variety of fibre. It also found that structurally viscose and cupromonium fibres were different and they had different characteristics and different use. The Tribunal relied on a certificate issued by the manufacturer which read as under : "This is to certify that cupro rayon (Bemberg) staple fibre is one of man-made fibres of cellulosic origin and is of the same family as viscose staple fibre and polynosic staple fibre in physical property." 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the findings recorded by the Tribunal. According to him since consignments imported by the appellant were found by test authorities of Bombay and Madras to the viscose the Tribunal was not justified in relying the report submitted by the Cochin Customs House. The learned Counsel urged that the two fibres, cupromonium and viscose, are essentially the same, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in denying the exemption. It is further claimed that the authorities failed to afford opportunity to get the consignment tested afresh. The learned counsel submitted that the Department did not afford any opportunity to cross-examine the tester. 3. None of the submissions have any merit. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not claim fresh testing. No material has been placed to show that it applied for cross-examining the tester. On merits the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. 3. None of the submissions have any merit. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not claim fresh testing. No material has been placed to show that it applied for cross-examining the tester. On merits the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error of law. It is true that the two test houses gave report in favour of the appellant but that was not conclusive and in any case the Tribunal has based its finding not only on the report of the test house but also on the material furnished by the appellant and above all the certificate given by the manufacturers which has been extracted above. The exemption under Notification is to viscose and not the family of viscose. The finding of the Tribunal is well founded. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.