https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48652 Substantive export relief could not be denied merely because the AR4 forms and shipping documents described the goods incorrectly, where collateral evidence showed that the goods manufactured and exported were the same blended fabrics. Common marks and numbers, invoices, shipping bills, bill of lading, customs supervision endorsements, and verification by the jurisdictional superintendent established that the exported goods were blended MMF fabrics under Chapter Heading 55.12. The 100% polyester description was treated as an inadvertent clerical error, so the duty demand, interest, and penalty were not sustainable and the export claim succeeded. en-us Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Apr 2024 11:02:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48652 Substantive export relief could not be denied merely because the AR4 forms and shipping documents described the goods incorrectly, where collateral evidence showed that the goods manufactured and exported were the same blended fabrics. Common marks and numbers, invoices, shipping bills, bill of lading, customs supervision endorsements, and verification by the jurisdictional superintendent established that the exported goods were blended MMF fabrics under Chapter Heading 55.12. The 100% polyester description was treated as an inadvertent clerical error, so the duty demand, interest, and penalty were not sustainable and the export claim succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48652