Re-export condition under customs exemption notification bars relief when goods are not sent out within the prescribed time limit.

An exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus was available only if goods received back after export were re-exported within six months, with a further extension of up to six months by the Commissioner. Where the record does not show re-export within the stipulated or extended period, and no evidence establishes compliance with that condition, the notification benefit cannot be claimed. The stated legal position is that non-compliance with the time limit for re-export disentitles the claimant from exemption, and the demand and penalty were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 158/95-Cus was available when the goods were not re-exported within the period prescribed under the notification.

Analysis: The notification granted relief subject to the condition that the goods received back after export were to be re-exported within six months, with a further extension permissible up to six months by the Commissioner. The record did not show that the goods were re-exported within the stipulated or extendable period, and no evidence was produced to establish compliance with the notification condition. The settled legal position is that where the prescribed time limit for re-export is not met, the benefit of the notification cannot be claimed.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification was not available, and the demand with penalty was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because non-compliance with the re-export condition disentitled the appellant to exemption under the notification.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification conditioned on re-export within a stipulated period is unavailable when the goods are not re-exported within that period or within the permissible extension.

---