Substantial compliance for re-import exemption upheld where proof showed repairs could not be done in India despite missing certificate.

Non-production of the certificate under the first proviso to Notification No. 204/76-Cus. did not by itself disentitle the importer from exemption on re-import of repaired goods, because the certificate was only meant to show that the repairs could not be carried out in India. The Revenue did not dispute the underlying factual position, and the importer produced a certificate from the Department of Electronics indicating lack of repair facilities in India. This was treated as substantial compliance, so the omission was procedural and the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether non-production of the certificate required under the first proviso to Notification No. 204/76-Cus. dated 2-8-1976, showing that the repairs could not be carried out in India, disentitled the importer from exemption on re-import of the repaired goods.

Analysis: The requirement of the certificate was intended to establish that the repairs undertaken abroad could not be done within India. The Revenue did not contend that such repairs were in fact possible in India. The importer produced a certificate from the Department of Electronics to show that the goods had to be sent abroad for want of repair facility in India. This was treated as sufficient proof of the underlying condition and as substantial compliance with the notification, making the lapse in formal production of the certificate procedural rather than substantive.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied merely for non-production of the certificate, and the departmental appeal failed.

---