Identity of re-imported goods upheld where minor size discrepancies were explained by invoice match and commercial practice.

Re-imported cut and polished precious stones were treated as identifiable as the same goods earlier exported because the value and weight matched the export invoice. Minor differences in size were regarded as negligible and explained by accepted commercial practice, differences in measurement, and a typographical error in the buyer's description. Expert opinion supported that explanation, and it was not controverted by the department. On that basis, the objection to re-import on identity grounds failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-imported parcel of cut and polished precious stones could be identified as the same goods earlier exported, notwithstanding minor differences in size and description.

Analysis: The value and weight of the goods tallied with the export invoice. The discrepancy in size of some pieces was found to be negligible and capable of explanation by accepted commercial practice of indicating calibrated size, differences in measurement, and a typographical error in the buyer's description. The expert opinion supported the appellants' case, and the department did not controvert that opinion or the explanation regarding the invoice description.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be identifiable as the same goods earlier exported, and the objection to re-import failed.

---