Entitlement to duty exemption for exports under ARE-I denied where documentary evidence shows sale to an intermediary, upholding factual finding.

Dispute concerns entitlement to duty exemption where goods were said to be exported under ARE-I. The Tribunal examined documentary evidence and found the supplier sold goods to an intermediary who effected export, concluding the supplier did not export under ARE-I and was not entitled to exemption. The appellate court declined to disturb these concurrent factual findings, holding that documentary-based primary findings on exportation and exemption stand unless a jurisdictional or legal error is demonstrated.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods removed under ARE-I were exported so as to entitle the supplier to duty exemption.

Analysis: The factual matrix recorded in the appellate record shows a chain of supply and sub-contracting with exportation allegedly effected by an intermediary. The Tribunal examined documentary material and concluded that the goods were sold to the intermediary rather than exported by the supplier under ARE-I. That conclusion was founded on assessment of the documents placed on record and involved primary findings of fact.

Conclusion: The appellate challenge to the Tribunal's conclusion on exportation fails; the Tribunal's factual finding that the goods were not exported under ARE-I and therefore not entitled to duty exemption is upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate forum will not ordinarily disturb concurrent findings of fact based on documentary evidence regarding exportation and entitlement to duty exemption unless a jurisdictional or legal error is shown.

---