Typographical error in tariff heading did not defeat concessional duty benefit for imported glycol ethers under the exemption notification.

Concessional duty under Notification No. 39/90 could not be denied because the tariff heading cited in the notification was inconsistent with the goods actually covered. The imported goods were ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, which the respondents' own affidavit placed under Tariff Heading 2909.43. Although column 2 of the notification referred to Tariff Heading 29.05, the Court treated that reference as a typographical error because the exemption description in column 3 matched the goods. The petitioner was therefore entitled to the concessional duty benefit under the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to concessional duty under Notification No. 39/90 dated 20.03.1990, despite the goods being shown under Tariff Heading 29.05 in the notification when the goods were in fact classifiable under Tariff Heading 2909.43.

Analysis: The goods imported were chemically ethylene glycol monoethyl ether and ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, which the respondents' own affidavit placed within Tariff Heading 2909.43. The notification described the exempted goods in column 3 as Ethyl Glycol and Butyl Glycol, but the reference in column 2 to Tariff Heading 29.05 was inconsistent with the actual classification and with the subject matter of the exemption. The Court treated the tariff heading entry as a typographical error and held that the exemption could not be denied merely because of that mistaken heading reference.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the concessional duty under the notification.

---