Transferability endorsement as a condition precedent defeats customs exemption where the licence was not duly endorsed for transfer.

Exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. was unavailable to a transferee of a DEEC licence unless the licensing authority had endorsed the licence as transferable. The endorsement was a condition precedent for a person other than the original licensee, and failure to satisfy it defeated the exemption claim at the threshold. Production of an end-use certificate could not cure this primary non-compliance or replace the required transferability endorsement. On the stated facts, the exemption claim failed and the denial of benefit was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus. when the licence transferability had not been endorsed by the licensing authority, and whether production of an end-use certificate could override that requirement.

Analysis: The benefit of the notification was available to a person other than the licensee only if the licence transferability was endorsed by the licensing authority. The appellant, claiming through a transferred DEEC licence, failed to establish that the imported goods were covered by an advance licence bearing the required endorsement. The absence of such endorsement went to the root of the exemption claim. The question of an end-use certificate was only subsidiary and could not cure non-fulfilment of the primary condition attached to the exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption, and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The order denying exemption was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification makes transferability endorsement a condition precedent for a person other than the licensee, non-compliance with that condition defeats the exemption claim and cannot be cured by proof of end use.

---