Re-imported goods exemption upheld where identity was established and no drawback or DEPB benefit had been availed

Re-imported goods after repair or recoating were treated as identifiable as the earlier exported goods, so exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus was available despite the absence of marks and numbers. The omission to intimate the Department at the later export stage was treated as procedural and not fatal. Independently, where no drawback or DEPB benefit had been claimed on the original export, the goods also fell within Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The duty demand was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-imported goods were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus on the basis that they were identifiable as the earlier exported goods, and alternatively whether duty was still not chargeable under Notification No. 94/96-Cus when no drawback or DEPB benefit had been availed on the original export.

Analysis: The goods were earlier exported and later re-imported after repair or recoating. The Department had accepted identity of the goods at the time of import despite the absence of marks and numbers, and the subsequent re-export under the DEPB scheme supported the description and nature of the goods. The omission to intimate the Department at the time of the later export was treated as procedural and not decisive. Independently, since no drawback or DEPB benefit had been taken on the original export, the assessee fell within the exemption contemplated by Notification No. 94/96-Cus.

Conclusion: The condition for exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus was treated as satisfied, and in any event duty was held not chargeable under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The duty demand was set aside in favour of the assessee.

---