Import exemption proof requires contemporaneous documents; a catalogue alone cannot establish a complete computer set for exemption.

Contemporaneous import documents controlled the exemption claim: the bill of entry, packing list and examination report showed only CPUs and monitors, so a catalogue alone was insufficient to prove that keyboards and mouse were also imported as part of a complete computer set. That factual finding was sustained. The alternative claim that CPUs alone qualified for exemption under Serial No. 1 of Notification No. 76/2004 was left open for limited reconsideration by the original authority, with an opportunity of hearing, because it had not been examined at the earlier stage.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had established that keyboards and mouse were also imported along with the CPUs and monitors, and whether the imported goods could be treated as a complete computer set for exemption purposes; (ii) whether the claim of exemption for CPUs alone under Serial No. 1 of Notification No. 76/2004 required consideration.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had established that keyboards and mouse were also imported along with the CPUs and monitors, and whether the imported goods could be treated as a complete computer set for exemption purposes.

Analysis: The documentary record, including the bill of entry and packing list, showed only CPUs and monitors. The catalogue could not be treated as conclusive proof that all items mentioned therein had actually been imported. The absence of separate mention of keyboards in the packing list supported the view that they were not imported, while the examination report also indicated only CPUs and monitors. On that basis, the finding that the claim of import of a complete computer set was not established did not call for interference.

Conclusion: The finding that only CPUs and monitors were imported was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the claim of exemption for CPUs alone under Serial No. 1 of Notification No. 76/2004 required consideration.

Analysis: The alternative claim for exemption in respect of CPUs alone had not been examined at the earlier stage because the benefit had not been claimed exclusively for CPUs. In the interests of justice, the matter required a limited reconsideration by the original authority with an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the original authority for limited examination of the exemption claim for CPUs under Serial No. 1 of Notification No. 76/2004.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the factual finding on the scope of the import failed, but the exemption claim for CPUs was left open for fresh determination by the original authority.

Ratio Decidendi: A catalogue by itself does not prove import of every item listed in it; actual import must be established from the contemporaneous import documents and examination record.

---