Customs exemption compliance: substantial correspondence and countersigned certification were enough to defeat a technical duty demand.

Customs exemption under a notification was held unavailable only where the prescribed recommendation and certification requirements were not met. A countersigned recommendation certificate was treated as sufficient compliance because the authorised officer had examined and endorsed the request, and the bill of entry description substantially matched the recommendation letter. Exact reproduction of every machinery specification was not required where the goods corresponded in substance and no misuse of the exemption or unauthorised use of the goods was shown. On that basis, the technical objection was rejected and the differential duty demand was found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of the customs exemption notification was available where the requisite recommendation certificate was countersigned by the authorised officer and the description of the imported machinery in the bill of entry corresponded substantially with the recommendation letter.

Analysis: The notification required satisfaction and certification by a specified officer that the goods were required for the notified purpose. The countersignature of the Industrial Adviser was treated as sufficient compliance because it showed that the authorised officer had examined the certificate and endorsed the recommendation. The description in the bill of entry was found to tally with the recommendation letter, and exact reproduction of every specification was held unnecessary. No misuse of the exemption or use of the goods for an unauthorised purpose was shown.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the technical objection raised by the Revenue, and the demand of differential duty was unsustainable.

---