Substantial compliance for customs refund protects entitlement despite minor invoice defects in sales through consignment agents or stockists.

Refund of additional duty of customs under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus cannot be denied on minor defects in invoice endorsement or omission of the importer's name where the goods were sold through a consignment agent or stockist and the substantive refund conditions were otherwise met. The invoice contained the Bill of Entry details and a declaration that no credit of additional duty had been availed, and the Board's circular recognised refunds in such sales subject to authorisation and Chartered Accountant certification. The procedural lapse was treated as verifiable from contemporaneous records and insufficient to defeat substantial compliance, so the refund was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of 4% CVD under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus can be denied for minor defects in invoice endorsement and omission of the importer's name, when the goods were sold through a consignment agent or stockist and the substantive conditions for refund were otherwise met.

Analysis: The refund claim was rejected only on technical objections relating to the wording of the endorsement in the sale invoice and the absence of the importer's name on the invoice. The invoice, however, contained the Bill of Entry details and a declaration that no credit of additional duty of customs had been availed. The Board's circular contemplated refund in cases of sale through a consignment agent or stockist, subject to authorization under the agreement and production of a Chartered Accountant's certificate correlating VAT or sales tax payment with the imported goods. The reasoning adopted that the purpose of the refund notification was to prevent double benefit, and that where the duty element was not shown in the commercial invoice, the condition against availment of credit stood substantially satisfied. The defect pointed out was treated as procedural and verifiable from contemporary records, not as a failure of the substantive eligibility conditions.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the minor procedural objections raised, and the assessee was entitled to the refund.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the refund claim was sustained on the basis of substantial compliance with the notification conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive conditions for refund of additional duty are satisfied and the commercial invoice itself does not disclose duty so as to permit credit, a minor procedural lapse in endorsement cannot defeat the exemption or refund intended to prevent double benefit.

---