Notification benefit under re-import and re-export conditions cannot be denied solely for late extension request filing.

Notification No. 158/95 permitted re-import within three years of export and re-export within six months of re-import, with a further six-month extension available at the Commissioner's discretion. The notification did not require the extension request to be filed before expiry of the initial six-month period. Where the goods were re-exported within the overall permissible period, benefit of the notification could not be denied merely because the extension application was made after six months. On that basis, compliance with the notification was found and forfeiture of the bank guarantee was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 158/95 could be denied and the bank guarantee forfeited on the ground that the re-exported goods were not covered by a request for extension of time made within six months of re-import, although the goods were re-exported within the permissible overall period.

Analysis: The notification required re-import within three years of export and re-export within six months of re-import, extendable by a further six months at the Commissioner's discretion. The text of the notification did not stipulate that an application for extension must be made before expiry of the initial six-month period. The main condition of re-export within the overall permissible period was not violated. Denial of the notification benefit merely because the request for extension was filed after six months was therefore unwarranted.

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

---