Reimport exemption for repair goods fails where identity of exported and returned goods is not proved.

Exemption on reimport under Notification No. 204/76-Cus. applied only where the importer proved that the reimported goods were the very same goods earlier exported for repair. The available records did not establish identity: the shipping bill and original import invoice lacked serial numbers, and the DGTD certificate alone was insufficient to displace the contrary material. The burden of proving coverage under the notification lay on the claimant, and that burden was not discharged. The claim to the notification benefit was therefore rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 204/76-Cus. on reimport of goods claimed to have been sent for repair, and whether the identity of the reimported goods with the exported goods had been established.

Analysis: The notification applied only if the reimported goods were shown to be the same goods that had earlier been exported for repair. The available documents did not satisfactorily establish identity: the shipping bill contained no serial number, the original import invoice also did not show any serial number, and the DGTD certificate by itself was insufficient to overcome the other material. The person claiming exemption had the burden of proving that the goods were covered by the notification, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The appellant failed to establish that the goods reimported were the same goods exported for repair, and the claim to the notification benefit was rightly rejected.

---