Re-import exemption for reprocessed catalyst upheld; later customs exclusion for remanufacture was not retrospective.

Re-imported catalyst sent abroad for platinum recovery and reprocessing was treated as an article re-imported after repair, so exemption under Notification 204/76 applied where the prescribed technical certificate and identity requirements were satisfied. The process of recovering platinum and redepositing it on a carrier was not treated as creating a new article on the facts described. Notification No. 141/94-Cus., which expressly excluded remanufacture or reprocessing by melting, recycling or recasting, was treated as a substantive change and not a retrospective clarification, so it did not affect the earlier exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the re-imported catalyst, sent abroad after use for recovery of platinum and reprocessing, was entitled to exemption under Notification 204/76 as an article re-imported after repair, and whether Notification No. 141/94-Cus. dated 1-7-1994 could be treated as retrospective.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification 204/76 applied to articles re-imported after being exported for repairs, subject to the prescribed technical certificate and satisfaction regarding identity of the goods. The record showed that the licensing authority and the DGTD had treated the process as reprocessing/reconditioning in the course of an authorised re-import scheme. The earlier Bombay High Court decision on identically worded exemption language was held applicable, and the Court rejected the view that recovery of platinum and redeposition on a carrier necessarily converted the process into manufacture of a new article. The 1994 notification introduced an express exclusion for remanufacture or reprocessing by melting, recycling or recasting, which was treated as a substantive change and not a mere clarification.

Conclusion: The imported catalyst was eligible for exemption under Notification 204/76, and the later exclusion in Notification No. 141/94-Cus. did not operate retrospectively. The appeal was therefore allowed and the adverse order was set aside.

---