Customs exemption cannot be denied for late claim where prior clearances and export obligation support the concession.

Benefit of Notification No. 159/90-Cus. could not be denied merely because the exemption was not claimed at the time of clearance. The record showed confusion caused by the contemporaneous customs circular and the course followed in earlier consignments cleared under the same advance licence, and the assessee had already availed the same concession previously. In these peculiar facts, the omission was not treated as a deliberate abandonment of the exemption, especially where the export obligation had otherwise been fulfilled. The refusal based only on the timing of the claim was considered too technical, and the benefit was allowed to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 159/90-Cus. could be denied on the ground that the exemption was not claimed at the time of clearance of the goods.

Analysis: The claim for duty-free clearance was not made at the first instance, but the record showed confusion arising from the contemporaneous customs circular and the practice followed in earlier consignments cleared under the same advance licence. The appellants had already cleared previous consignments availing the same benefit, and the refusal in the present case was not treated as a deliberate abandonment of the exemption. In these peculiar facts, denial of the notification solely on the timing of the claim was considered too technical, particularly where the assessee had otherwise intended to avail the concession and had already fulfilled the export obligation.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification could not be denied on the ground that the claim was not made at clearance; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---