Customs concession for replacement accessories denied where the later consignment was separately invoiced and not shown as free replacement.

Imported replacement accessories were held outside the scope of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 because the later consignment was separately invoiced and was not shown to be a free replacement for pilfered or short-shipped goods. The record indicated that the original accessories had already been assessed with the relevant customs benefit, and no specific rule was identified to extend concessional treatment to the subsequent supply. On that basis, the claimed concession was denied and the duty demand was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported accessories, claimed to be replacement goods for pilfered accessories, were entitled to the benefit of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963.

Analysis: The claim for concessional treatment depended on the appellants bringing the subsequent consignment within the scope of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963. The record showed that the original accessories had already been assessed by granting the relevant customs benefit, while the later consignment was invoiced separately and was not shown to be free replacement on account of short-shipment. No specific provision of the Rules was pointed out to establish entitlement for the replacement consignment.

Conclusion: The benefit of the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963 was not available, and the duty demand was sustained.

---