Re-imported goods exemption turns on proven identity and substantive compliance, with procedural lapses insufficient for identifiable quantity.

Re-imported herbal extract was held to satisfy the key conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. where the original export and re-import of the same goods were established within the prescribed time and the identity of the goods was sufficiently proved. The Tribunal treated the breach as procedural only for the identifiable 75 kg portion, so exemption was retained for that quantity. Duty was sustained only for 25 kg where compliance was not proved. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside for the portion covered by the notification because no substantive violation was shown there.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-imported herbal extract satisfied the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. so as to retain exemption, and whether duty, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The re-import took place within one year of export, satisfying the first condition of the notification. The dispute centred on re-export within six months and satisfaction as to identity of the goods. On the facts, the original export and re-import of the same goods were established. The Tribunal further found that, although there was non-compliance in respect of the full quantity and certain procedural conditions, the discrepancy did not extend to the consignment of 75 kg, for which the identity and linkage to the re-imported goods stood sufficiently explained. The failure was treated as procedural rather than substantive for that quantity, and no basis remained for confiscation, redemption fine or penalty on that portion.

Conclusion: The duty demand was sustained only for 25 kg, while the benefit of the notification was allowed for 75 kg. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were set aside, and the assessee succeeded in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the essential identity of re-imported goods is established and the breach of notification conditions is only procedural in respect of part of the quantity, exemption cannot be denied for that identifiable portion, and consequential confiscation, fine and penalty are not warranted for it.

---