Duty-free re-import turns on identity of goods, and a quantity shortfall alone does not defeat exemption.

For duty-free re-import of exported goods, identity is determined by the nature and description of the goods, not by a mere shortage in quantity. Where the re-imported consignment matched the earlier export invoice in lot-wise description and there was no dispute about the nature or variety of the goods, a shortfall in quantity alone did not justify treating the goods as different. On that basis, denial of exemption, confiscation, duty demand and penalty were stated to be unsustainable, and the consignment was entitled to return to the importer.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-imported consignment was liable to denial of duty-free clearance, confiscation, duty demand and penalty on the ground that the quantity on re-import was short, though the nature and variety of the goods matched the goods earlier exported.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the imported consignment was the same as the exported goods for the purpose of the duty-free re-import notification. The examination report showed a shortage in quantity, but there was no dispute regarding the nature or variety of the goods, and the lot-wise description matched the export invoice. The reasoning that the goods were not the same could not be sustained merely because of shortage in quantity. The shortage did not determine identity of the goods, and any shortfall in quantity was outside the scope of the customs proceedings where no exemption was claimed for the missing quantity.

Conclusion: The denial of benefit, confiscation, duty demand and penalty were unsustainable, and the imported consignment was held entitled to return to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: For duty-free re-import of exported goods, identity is determined by the nature and description of the goods, and not by a mere shortage in quantity, unless there is evidence that the goods themselves are different.

---