GSM tolerance for imported paper can preserve concessional exemption when goods meet the notification's essential description.

Concessional exemption under Notification No. 23/98 was available for imported light weight coated paper where the essential description in the notification was satisfied and the actual user condition was undisputed. The dispute turned only on GSM variance in test reports. The contract documents and supplier specification indicated 60 gsm with tolerance, paper was recognised as hygroscopic, and its GSM could vary with moisture absorption. A reasonable tolerance was therefore required, since strict insistence on the tested figure would defeat the purpose of the exemption and produce an anomalous result. The consignment was accordingly entitled to concessional assessment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported paper was entitled to concessional exemption under Notification No. 23/98 despite the test reports showing GSM above 70, in view of permissible tolerance and the nature of paper.

Analysis: The notification covered light weight coated paper imported by actual users for printing magazines, and there was no dispute on the nature of the goods or the actual user condition. The dispute related only to GSM. The contract documents and supplier's specification indicated 60 gsm with a tolerance, while the departmental test reports varied materially. Paper was recognised as hygroscopic, and its GSM could change with moisture absorption. The acknowledged tolerance in the Export & Import Policy supported allowing a reasonable variation, and a strict insistence on the exact GSM figure would defeat the purpose of the exemption and create an anomalous result.

Conclusion: The imported consignment was entitled to concessional assessment, as due allowance for GSM variation had to be made.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the exempted goods satisfy the essential description in the notification, a reasonable tolerance must be allowed for GSM variation in paper if the nature of the goods and the surrounding documents show that strict insistence on the tested figure would defeat the intended exemption.

---