Tariff description discrepancy did not defeat interim relief where coated and uncoated wire fell under the same sub-heading.

A discrepancy in description between the declaration and gate passes, where inputs were described as wire of iron and non-alloy steel in one document and as non-alloy steel wire coated with zinc in another, was treated as an issue of description rather than of duty payment or identity of the goods. Because both coated and uncoated wire fell under the same tariff sub-heading, and the department had accepted the coated description for Modvat purposes over time, the difference was held insufficient to defeat interim relief. A prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit was therefore made out, and recovery was stayed pending appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery where the declaration described the inputs as wire of iron and non-alloy steel, while the gate passes described them as wire of non-alloy steel coated with zinc.

Analysis: The declaration and gate passes were examined together and the dispute was found to be only about the adequacy of description, not about duty payment or the identity of the goods actually received and used. Both coated and uncoated wires fell under the same tariff sub-heading, and the department had accepted gate passes describing the goods as coated with zinc over a period of time for Modvat purposes. In these circumstances, the discrepancy in description was treated as insufficient to deny interim relief.

Conclusion: The appellant established a prima facie case, and pre-deposit of duty was waived with recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

---