Strict construction of exemption notifications denies concessional duty where the imported goods do not match the notification entry.

Ethylene Vinyl Acetate imported by the appellant was held not to qualify for concessional customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus because, during the relevant period, the entry covered Ethyl Vinyl Acetate and not the imported commodity. The later amendment correcting the description could not be applied retrospectively to extend the exemption on the facts presented. The analysis reiterates that exemption notifications must be strictly construed, and the claimant must show clear coverage within the plain words of the notification. Accordingly, the concession was not available for the disputed imports.

---

---

Issues: Whether Ethylene Vinyl Acetate imported by the appellant was eligible for concessional customs duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, as amended, when the notification entry then covered Ethyl Vinyl Acetate.

Analysis: The imported goods were admittedly not the same as the commodity named in the notification during the relevant period. The later amendment substituting the correct description could not be used to extend the concession retrospectively on the facts of the case. Exemption notifications must be construed strictly, and the claimant must clearly establish that the goods fall within the plain words of the exemption. Where the language of the entry is clear, no liberal interpretation can enlarge the benefit beyond the stated description.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not covered by the notification in force during the relevant period and the concessional rate of duty was not available.

---