relief in the complaint is to the same effect, seeking “lost duties in the amount of $305,445.95”— again, not $308,781.23. See id. at ¶ 4 of demand for relief. The Government’s motion fails even to acknowledge, much less explain, this critical discrepancy. In light of the inconsistencies between the complaint and the Government’s pending motion concerning the amount of unpaid antidumping duties at issue in this action, default judgment against Country Flavor for unpaid duties cannot enter. See generally 10 Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.32[2][a], p. 55-47 (explaining that “errors and discrepancies in the pleadings and affidavits” may necessitate court inquiry and thus preclude entry of default judgment); see, e.g., KPS & Assocs. v. Designs by FMC, Inc., 318 F.3d 1, 18-19 (1st Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). III. Conclusion For the reasons set forth
holding that complaint on appeal must be the same as that presented in the trial court holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint recognizing that one of those conditions for a district judge to grant leave to amend the complaint may properly be that claims contained in the original complaint but not included in the amended complaint be considered dismissed with prejudice  holding defendant waived complaint holding that district court erred in basing damages decision on complaint and affidavit where there were obvious discrepancies between damages claimed in body of complaint and damages requested in ad damnum clause as well as serious arithmetical errors in affidavit filed with complaint