Export documentation consistency defeats duty demand where tariff-classification mismatch is found to be an inadvertent mistake.

Where export invoices, ARE-1 forms, packing lists, bill of lading and other export documents all matched on quantity, specification and part numbers, a discrepancy in the tariff classification shown in one set of documents was treated as an inadvertent clerical mistake. The matching particulars, the foreign consignee details, and certification of the export documents by central excise officers supported the conclusion that the same goods were exported and that there was no evidence of two different sets of goods or domestic clearance. On that basis, the duty demand was held not to survive and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the duty demand could survive when the invoices, ARE-1 forms, packing lists, bill of lading and export documents showed the same goods were exported, despite discrepancy in the tariff classification mentioned in one set of documents.

Analysis: The invoices issued by the appellant were in the name of the merchant buyer but clearly showed the foreign consignee. The quantity, specification and part numbers in the appellant's invoices, the merchant buyer's invoices, the packing list, the bill of lading and the ARE-1 forms matched exactly. The export documents were examined and certified by the central excise officers, and the bonds executed for export were later released. In that background, the difference in the heading number shown in the ARE-1 and the appellant's invoice was treated as an inadvertent mistake and not as evidence of two different sets of goods or domestic clearance.

Conclusion: The duty demand was held not to survive and was set aside.

---