Prior certification condition defeats customs exemption when the importer fails to comply before clearance.

A customs exemption depended on prior certification by the designated authority and an undertaking before import or clearance. Because the importer did not seek the required certificate in time, and the later request did not disclose that the goods had already been imported and cleared, the condition was treated as substantive rather than merely procedural. The exemption was therefore unavailable and the denial of refund was upheld, while earlier authorities were distinguished on the basis that timely steps had been taken there.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 317/87-Cus. despite not obtaining the DGTD certificate before import or clearance of the goods.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification was subject to certification by the prescribed DGTD authority and the furnishing of an undertaking. The importer had not applied for the requisite certificate before import or before clearance of the goods, and the request made later did not disclose that the goods had already been imported and cleared. The Tribunal held that the condition requiring prior compliance was not merely procedural but substantive, and the benefit could not be extended when the prescribed steps had not been taken in time. The earlier authorities cited by the importer were distinguished because, in those cases, timely steps had been taken before clearance.

Conclusion: The importer was not entitled to the exemption, and the denial of refund was /valid in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a customs exemption is made conditional upon prior certification by a designated authority, failure to take the requisite steps before import or clearance defeats the exemption when the condition is substantive rather than merely procedural.

---