Customs exemption cannot be denied for minor width variation without checking export obligation and unutilised excess.

Customs duty exemption could not be denied solely because imported goods were only 4.5 cm wider than the width stated in the advance licence and DEEC. The goods had been used to manufacture exported shoe uppers, and there remained substantial balance under the licence, so the wider measurement by itself did not show any intent to gain an impermissible advantage. The matter was remanded for fresh examination of whether the export obligation had been fulfilled and whether any duty demand could arise only in respect of any unutilised excess.

---

---

Issues: Whether exemption from customs duty could be denied merely because the imported goods were of slightly greater width than the width specified in the advance licence and DEEC, and whether the matter required reconsideration of fulfilment of the export obligation.

Analysis: The goods imported were wider by 4.5 cms., but the appellants could have obtained an import licence and DEEC for the actual width. The material had been used in the manufacture of shoe uppers which were exported, and there was still substantial balance in running metres and value under the licence. On these facts, the import of greater width did not indicate any intention to secure an impermissible advantage, nor did the wider measurement by itself justify denial of the exemption without examining whether the excess quantity had been properly accounted for against export performance.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption solely on the ground of excess width was not sustained, and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector for fresh examination of the export obligation and duty demand, if any, relatable only to any unutilised excess.

---