Substantial compliance in export procedure defeated duty demand where goods were actually exported through an alternative route.

Duty could not be demanded merely because export was made through an alternative land route instead of the originally intended sea route, where the exporters had informed the excise authorities and the goods were actually exported. The order treated export formalities as means to achieve actual export, and held that once the Assistant Collector was satisfied about the export itself, the deviation in route could be regularised in substance rather than visited with duty. The duty demand was therefore not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty could be demanded merely because the export was effected through an alternative land route instead of the originally intended sea route, despite intimation to the excise authorities and actual export of the goods.

Analysis: The order accepted that the deviation concerned only the route adopted for export and that the change was compelled by circumstances beyond the exporters' control. It was held that export procedures are only the means to achieve the end of actual export, and where the Assistant Collector is satisfied about the export itself, the formalities should be treated as complied with in substance. The order further observed that the changed mode of export justified regularisation of the documents rather than a demand of duty.

Conclusion: The demand for duty was not sustained and the revision application was allowed.

---