https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80637 The appeal was rejected by the tribunal due to the appellant's failure to comply with essential conditions of Notification 204/76-Cus. The absence of the required Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) certificate, re-importation beyond the specified period, and the inability to establish the identity of the imported goods were key factors leading to the rejection of the appeal. The tribunal found the appellant's approach lacking in providing necessary evidence, particularly the absence of correspondence with the supplier to confirm the identity of the goods. en-us Fri, 04 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 18 Jun 2011 12:01:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80637 The appeal was rejected by the tribunal due to the appellant's failure to comply with essential conditions of Notification 204/76-Cus. The absence of the required Directorate General of Technical Development (DGTD) certificate, re-importation beyond the specified period, and the inability to establish the identity of the imported goods were key factors leading to the rejection of the appeal. The tribunal found the appellant's approach lacking in providing necessary evidence, particularly the absence of correspondence with the supplier to confirm the identity of the goods. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 04 May 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80637