Advance authorisation exemption not denied for ITC (HS) mismatch where goods matched the authorised description and amendment was procedural.

Notification No. 93/2004-Cus benefit was treated as unavailable only where the imported goods failed to match the authorised description; a mismatch in ITC (HS) heading alone was not decisive. The SION norms covered the goods, and the licensing authority's minutes clarified that the change in ITC (HS) code did not affect entitlement under the advance authorisation. The amendment was treated as procedural rather than substantive, so its retrospective operation was accepted for exemption purposes. Denial of the notification benefit on the ground of classification mismatch was therefore not sustainable on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 93/2004-Cus could be denied on the ground that the goods were classified under a different ITC (HS) heading from the one originally mentioned in the advance authorisation, when the description of the imported goods matched the licence and the authorisation was later amended.

Analysis: The description in the SION norms covered the imported goods, and neither the SION norms nor the notification made the customs heading determinative where the goods otherwise matched the authorised description. The licensing authority's minutes clarified that the change in ITC (HS) code had no bearing on the benefit under the advance authorisation, and the amendment was treated as procedural rather than substantive. On that basis, the earlier view that the amendment could not operate retrospectively was not accepted for the facts of this case.

Conclusion: The retrospective effect of the amendment was upheld for the purpose of the exemption, and denial of the notification benefit on the ground of classification mismatch was unsustainable.

---