Re-importation notification benefit allowed where customs records established identity of goods through export and re-import cycle.

Notification No. 158/95-Cus. on re-importation was held applicable where customs records and the Superintendent's certificate showed that the same Girls Anoraks and Boys Anoraks had been exported and later re-imported. The absence of the precise word "re-exported" in the certificate did not defeat the claim, because the document clearly traced the goods through the export and re-import cycle. On that basis, the required identity and correlation of the goods was treated as established, and the notification benefit could not be denied. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. on re-importation of the goods, despite the objection that the goods re-imported were not shown to be the same goods that were earlier exported and later re-exported.

Analysis: The certificate issued by the Superintendent of Customs specifically recorded that the Girls Anoraks and Boys Anoraks were re-imported and were subsequently exported to Germany and France. The absence of the exact expression "re-exported" in the certificate did not detract from its clear import that the same goods had been traced through the export and re-import cycle. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the required correlation stood established and that the notification benefit could not be denied.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus., and the duty demand was not sustainable.

---