Re-import exemption conditions cannot be avoided by switching notifications where the goods were exported under a different scheme.

Re-imported goods remain subject to Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 and to the conditions attached to the exemption notification elected at import. Notification No. 158/95-Cus. required re-export within the stipulated period and compliance with the bond, so the importer could not later switch to another notification to avoid those obligations. Notification No. 94/96-Cus. applied only to goods exported under the DEEC or EPCG scheme and did not extend to consignments exported under the DEPB Scheme. The Tribunal's order was set aside, the demand was restored, and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether re-imported goods earlier exported under the DEPB Scheme could claim exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. and whether the importer, having elected to proceed under Notification No. 158/95-Cus., could later shift to another notification to avoid the bond conditions.

Analysis: Section 20 of the Customs Act, 1962 makes re-imported goods liable to duty and to the conditions attached to their import. Notification No. 158/95-Cus. granted exemption on re-import subject to re-export within the stipulated period and compliance with the bond executed at import. The importer had availed that benefit and could not disregard its conditions by later invoking another notification. Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was held to apply only to goods exported under the DEEC or EPCG scheme, while the disputed consignments covered by two bills of entry had been exported under the DEPB Scheme. Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the related provisions concerning bond-based export under the excise procedure did not extend that notification to DEPB exports.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was not available to the consignments exported under the DEPB Scheme, and the importer could not change its stand to avoid the conditions of Notification No. 158/95-Cus. The issue was decided against the assessee and in favour of Revenue.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Tribunal was set aside and the Commissioner's demand was restored, with the appeal allowed and costs awarded.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessee who has taken exemption under one notification for re-imported goods must comply with its conditions and cannot later invoke a different notification that, on its terms, does not cover the scheme under which the goods were originally exported.

---