Customs exemption extension can be granted after export where substantial compliance is shown and delay alone is not decisive.

Where a customs exemption notification confers power to extend the export period, that power may be exercised after export if the goods have been used in manufacture of exported goods and the scheme has been substantially complied with. A refusal based only on the belated filing of the extension request would frustrate the object of the notification, especially where the record does not show absence of sufficient cause. The appellate order granting extension of the export period was therefore upheld, and the departmental challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether extension of the export period under Condition No. 3(d)(I)(iii) of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 could be granted after the exports were made, and whether rejection of the request merely because it was made belatedly was justified.

Analysis: The imported goods had admittedly been used in the manufacture of goods that were exported, so the object of the exemption scheme stood substantially fulfilled. The notification vested power in the adjudicating authority to consider delay and grant extension, and the absence of an express clause describing such extension as ex post facto did not bar the exercise of that power after export. A refusal solely on the ground that the application was not filed before expiry of the one-year period would defeat the purpose of the exemption notification. The record also did not show rejection on the ground that sufficient cause was absent.

Conclusion: The belated request for extension was permissible and the order granting extension was ; the department's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order allowing extension of the export period was upheld, and the departmental appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a customs exemption notification confers power to extend the export period, that power may be exercised even after export if the scheme has been substantially complied with and a purely procedural objection would frustrate the object of the notification.

---