Special Additional Duty refund claims cannot fail for minor description mismatches when import-sale correlation is otherwise established

Refund of Special Additional Duty cannot be denied merely because the description of imported goods in the bill of entry does not exactly match the sales invoices, where supporting records establish that the imported and sold goods are the same. Chartered Accountant certificates and correlation statements may substantiate the nexus between import and sale. A minor variation in description, explained by market usage or classification based on thickness, is insufficient on its own to reject the claim when the underlying transaction is otherwise proved. The document states that the assessee was entitled to refund on these facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether refund of Special Additional Duty could be denied on the ground that the description of the imported goods in the bill of entry did not exactly match the description in the sales invoices, despite supporting documents such as the Chartered Accountant certificate and correlation statements.

Analysis: The refund claim was rejected for mismatch in description between the bill of entry and sales invoices. The documents showed that the goods imported were the same goods later sold, and the difference in description was explained as arising from market usage and classification based on thickness. The Chartered Accountant certificate and correlation statements supported the nexus between import and sale. Minor variation in description, by itself, was not sufficient to disbelieve the claim where the underlying transaction was otherwise established.

Conclusion: The refund could not be denied on the basis of the described discrepancy, and the assessee was entitled to refund.

---