Transfer of residence exemption must be applied reasonably; new-looking household goods do not by themselves defeat the concession.

Rule 2(b) of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978 requires personal and household effects to have been in the possession and use of the person or family abroad for at least one year, but the concession must be applied reasonably as a beneficial exemption. Once possession for the prescribed period is established or accepted, actual use during that period may ordinarily be presumed. Denial cannot rest merely on the fact that the goods appear new or show no obvious wear, except where the facts clearly indicate that the articles were plainly unused. On these facts, the transfer of residence concession was available for the disputed articles.

---

---

Issues: Whether, under Rule 2(b) of the Transfer of Residence Rules, 1978, the benefit of exemption could be denied merely because personal and household effects appeared new or did not show visible signs of use, despite established possession abroad for the prescribed period.

Analysis: Rule 2(b) requires the goods to have been in the possession and use of the person or his family abroad for a minimum period of one year. The decision treated the concession as a beneficial exemption meant to permit return of household effects acquired and used abroad, and held that the condition must be applied reasonably. Where possession for the prescribed period is established or accepted, use during that period may ordinarily be presumed. The order further held that denial should not rest on a superficial appearance that the article looks new or lacks obvious signs of wear, except in extreme cases where the facts clearly show that the article could not have been used or was plainly unused.

Conclusion: The requirement of use was not to be applied as a rigid or fetishized test in the present facts, and the appellant was entitled to the transfer of residence concession for the disputed articles.

---