Technical identity over nomenclature kept imported goods within licence coverage and defeated customs duty, interest, and penalty.

Imported goods were treated as covered by the import licence where authoritative clarifications showed the licensed description and the goods actually imported were physically, functionally, and technically identical. A mere difference in nomenclature, without contrary material, was insufficient to sustain a finding of excess import. On that basis, the proposed customs duty, interest, and penalty were held unsustainable, and the duty benefit attached to the licence was preserved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the import of 10 cooling bells was outside the scope of the import licence and therefore liable to customs duty, interest, and penalty, or whether the goods were covered by the licence on the basis of their technical identity and the clarifications produced.

Analysis: The goods imported as 10 cooling bells for the HNX Batch Annealing Facility were described in the licence under a different nomenclature. The supplier's clarification stated that the imported items corresponded to the licensed description, and the Ministry of Steel clarified that the items imported for the two facilities were physically, functionally, and technically the same, differing only in nomenclature and use in different annealing processes. In the absence of any contrary material, such clarifications could not be ignored. The finding of excess import was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The demand of customs duty, interest, and penalty was not sustainable, and the import was held to be covered by the licence.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the licensed description and the imported goods are shown by authoritative clarification to be physically, functionally, and technically identical, a mere difference in nomenclature does not justify treating the import as excess or denying the consequential duty benefit.

---