Conditional customs exemption denied for defective pacemaker parts, but re-export had to be examined before final duty liability.

Conditional exemption under Notification No. 20/99-Cus. was unavailable because the imported parts of an implantable cardiac pacemaker were defective and were not used for the intended purpose. However, duty liability could not be finally fixed without examining the legal effect of re-export of those defective goods. The lower authorities had not specifically considered whether re-export altered the duty consequence or affected the relief available, so the matter required remand for that limited determination while the denial of exemption was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under Notification No. 20/99-Cus. was available for imported parts of an implantable cardiac pacemaker when the goods were not used for the intended purpose because they were defective; (ii) Whether duty liability could be fastened without considering the effect of re-export of the defective goods.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under Notification No. 20/99-Cus. was available for imported parts of an implantable cardiac pacemaker when the goods were not used for the intended purpose because they were defective.

Analysis: The imported parts were claimed to be covered by the notification subject to a condition requiring use for the intended purpose. The goods were found defective and were not put to such use. On that basis, the exemption was denied by the lower authorities, and that finding was accepted.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 20/99-Cus. was not available.

Issue (ii): Whether duty liability could be fastened without considering the effect of re-export of the defective goods.

Analysis: The defective goods had been re-exported, and the question whether such re-export altered the duty liability had not been specifically examined by the lower authorities. The matter required consideration of the practical and legal consequences of re-export before fastening duty liability.

Conclusion: The re-export aspect had to be considered and the matter required remand.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption was sustained, but the order was set aside and the matter was sent back for specific consideration of the re-export claim and the relief available in that context.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported defective goods are re-exported, duty liability cannot be finally determined without examining the legal effect of such re-export, even if the conditional exemption is otherwise unavailable for non-use of the goods for the intended purpose.

---