Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether re-imported goods exported under a DEEC shipping bill were barred from exemption under Notification No. 97/95-Cus. merely because the export had been routed through the DEEC scheme, or whether the benefit remained available when the essential conditions of the scheme had not been substantially fulfilled.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 97/95-Cus. was excluded by the second proviso only in respect of goods re-imported after export under the DEEC scheme. The relevant inquiry was not the mere form of the shipping bill, but whether the export obligation and other vital ingredients of the scheme had in fact been fulfilled. The goods had been refused by the foreign buyer, no effective export performance had been completed, and the DEEC mechanism had not been substantially worked out, including the absence of final closure of the DEEC process. On a substance-based reading of the scheme, the goods could not be treated as having been exported under the DEEC scheme in the sense contemplated by the disabling proviso.
Conclusion: The bar under condition (b) of the second proviso to Notification No. 97/95-Cus. did not apply, and the appellant was entitled to the exemption on re-importation.