Conditional customs exemption cannot be denied for delayed end use certificate when intended use is undisputed.

Conditional customs exemption under Notification No. 17/2001-Cus could not be denied merely because the end use certificate was produced late. The imported cables were admittedly put to the intended use, there was no allegation of diversion, and the notification itself contemplated extension of time for furnishing the certificate. Where the evidentiary purpose of the condition was satisfied in fact, absence of a timely request for extension did not justify denial of the exemption. The impugned order was therefore set aside and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus could be denied for delayed production of the end use certificate.

Analysis: The imported cables were admittedly put to the intended use and there was no allegation of diversion. The notification required production of an end use certificate to verify actual use and also contemplated extension of time for furnishing it. In these circumstances, absence of a timely application for extension did not justify denial of the exemption when the factual purpose of the condition stood satisfied and the certificate had in fact been produced.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification could not be denied on the ground of delayed production of the end use certificate.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A conditional exemption cannot be denied for delayed compliance with an evidentiary requirement when the intended end use is undisputed and the condition's purpose stands satisfied.

---