Exemption claim fails where import description and proof do not establish identity with notified goods

Exemption from auxiliary duty was denied because the imported goods described in the Bill of Entry as cross linked polyethylene compound did not match the goods covered by the exemption notification, which applied to low density or medium density polyethylene moulding powder or granules. The claim also failed for lack of reliable proof that the consignment actually answered the notification description, as no test results or other convincing evidence were produced. Reference to other imports from the same supplier was insufficient to establish identity of the goods, particularly after the goods had left customs control and further verification was no longer possible. The rejection of the refund claim was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to refund of auxiliary duty by claiming exemption under Notification No. 67-Cus. dated 1.3.1984 despite the description in the Bill of Entry not matching the description of the exempted goods and no reliable proof being produced to establish identity of the imported goods.

Analysis: The claim for exemption failed because the goods described in the Bill of Entry as cross linked polyethylene compound did not conform to the description in the notification, which covered low density or medium density polyethylene moulding powder or granules under Heading 39.01/06. The appellant did not produce convincing evidence, such as test results or material establishing that the goods actually answered the notification description. Reference to other imports from the same supplier was insufficient to prove that the goods in the present consignment were identical, especially when the goods had already gone out of customs control and further verification was no longer possible.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the exemption or refund, and the lower authorities were in rejecting the claim.

---