Re-import exemption under customs law survives technical delay where a binding circular relaxes the one-year time condition.

Exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. was treated as available even where re-import occurred after the stipulated one-year period, because the delay was regarded as a technical lapse and the Board circular was applied as relaxing the time condition for EOUs. The analysis also relied on an earlier decision upheld by the Supreme Court, noting that the notification conditions were similar. On that basis, denial of the exemption solely for non-compliance with the one-year requirement was not justified, and the exemption benefit was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus. could be denied merely because the re-import of goods took place beyond the stipulated one-year period, in the light of the Board circular and the earlier decision upheld by the Supreme Court.

Analysis: The rejection of the exemption was examined against the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals), who had relied on the precedent concerning delay in re-import and on Board Circular No. 60/99. The governing principle applied was that the delay was treated as a technical lapse and that the circular, issued to address difficulties faced by EOUs, had effect over the notification condition relating to time. The Tribunal also noted that the earlier decision had already been upheld by the Supreme Court and that the conditions in the notification under consideration were similar.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the sole ground of re-import after one year, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was in allowing the benefit.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the order granting the exemption benefit was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the delay in re-import is treated as a technical lapse and a binding circular relaxes the time condition, exemption cannot be denied merely for non-compliance with the one-year period.

---