End-use compliance governs customs exemption, and late filing of the certificate cannot defeat benefit where intended use is proved.

Exemption under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. remained available where the imported goods were actually used for the intended leather industry purpose, even though the end-use certificate was filed late. The notification required both end-use compliance and production of the certificate within the stipulated or extended time, but the record showed that the substantive condition of intended use had been satisfied and the certificate was ultimately submitted to Customs. On that basis, delayed filing was treated as a procedural lapse rather than a ground to deny the exemption, and the denial of benefit was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. could be denied merely because the end-use certificate was furnished belatedly, when the imported goods were admittedly used for the intended purpose.

Analysis: The exemption was subject to use of the imported goods in leather industries and to production of an end-use certificate within the stipulated time or such extended time as allowed by the competent authority. The record showed that the imported material had in fact been used for the intended purpose and that the end-use certificate, though obtained late, was ultimately submitted to the Customs authorities. The delay related to compliance with the procedural requirement of filing the certificate, while the substantive condition for exemption stood satisfied. In such circumstances, the benefit of exemption could not be denied.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption was not justified and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the notification.

---