Notification compliance turns on timely re-export, not delayed extension request, where the goods were ultimately re-exported within the permitted period.

Benefit under Notification No. 158/95 could not be denied merely because extension of time was sought after expiry of the initial six-month period, where the goods were ultimately re-exported within the notification framework. The notification required re-importation within three years and re-export within six months of re-importation, or within a further period allowed by the Commissioner; it did not expressly require the extension request to be filed before the six months expired. As the principal condition was not breached and an extension application had in fact been made, denial of relief and forfeiture of the bank guarantee were unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 158/95 could be denied and the bank guarantee forfeited merely because the appellant sought extension of time after the expiry of six months from re-importation, when the goods were ultimately re-exported within the notification period.

Analysis: The condition in the notification required re-importation within three years from export and re-export within six months of re-importation, or within such further period not exceeding six months as the Commissioner may allow. The notification did not expressly require that the request for extension be made before expiry of the initial six months. Since the principal condition of re-export within three years of re-importation was not violated, denial of the benefit on the sole ground of delayed application for extension was unwarranted. The cited earlier decision was found inapplicable on the facts because, unlike that case, an extension application had in fact been made.

Conclusion: The appellant was held to have complied with Notification No. 158/95, and forfeiture of the bank guarantee was not justified.

---