Refund of special additional duty allowed where minor description variance stayed within trade and BIS tolerance limits.

Refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus was treated as available where the resale invoice described the goods as 2.0mm mirror and the bill of entry described them as 1.8mm mirror, because the goods were otherwise identified as the imported goods and the thickness variation fell within accepted trade and BIS tolerance limits. On that basis, there was no material discrepancy showing that the resold goods were different from the imported goods. The analysis also noted that credit of the additional customs duty under section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not admissible, supporting refund eligibility under the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to refund of special additional duty under Notification No. 102/2007 CUS when the resale invoice described the goods as 2.0mm mirror while the bill of entry described them as 1.8mm mirror.

Analysis: The description in the resale invoice showed 2.0mm mirror with the same size as in the bill of entry, and the goods were identified as imported goods. The difference in thickness was within the tolerance limits accepted in trade and by the Bureau of Indian Standards, and there was no material discrepancy showing that the goods resold were different from the goods imported. The invoice also reflected that credit of the additional customs duty under sub-section 5 of section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was not admissible.

Conclusion: The respondent remained eligible for refund under the notification, and the appeal failed.

---