TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether returnable racks re-imported for use as packaging material for export tractors were entitled to duty exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003, and whether the later addendum to the Letter of Undertaking and Paragraph 2.26 of the EXIM Policy permitted clearance without denial of exemption.
Analysis: The addendum specifying the returnable racks as eligible goods was obtained before the goods were actually cleared from customs. Paragraph 2.26 of the EXIM Policy permits goods already imported, shipped or arrived in advance but not yet cleared to be cleared against an authorization issued subsequently. The racks were used for export packaging for a 100% Export Oriented Unit and the movement to the bonded premises was in the nature of bonded movement, so duty exemption could not be denied merely because the exemption document was not available when the Bill of Entry was filed.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the customs duty exemption, and denial of benefit under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus was unjustified.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where eligible goods are cleared only after a subsequent authorization is issued and the governing policy permits such post-arrival clearance, exemption cannot be denied solely because the authorization was not produced at the time of filing the Bill of Entry.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
