https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121383 Fulfilment of export obligation within the permitted or validly extended period preserved entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 204/92-Cus., and the alleged sale or diversion of duty-free imported material did not by itself defeat that benefit. The shipping bills recorded the export particulars, advance licence details and raw materials used, and Customs had accepted them. Mere delay between import and export, or differences between invoice value and job charges, was insufficient to establish breach where the export pattern had been accepted and the goods manufactured from the imported material were exported. The exports were required to be logged, and denial of the notification benefit was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121383 Fulfilment of export obligation within the permitted or validly extended period preserved entitlement to the benefit of Notification No. 204/92-Cus., and the alleged sale or diversion of duty-free imported material did not by itself defeat that benefit. The shipping bills recorded the export particulars, advance licence details and raw materials used, and Customs had accepted them. Mere delay between import and export, or differences between invoice value and job charges, was insufficient to establish breach where the export pattern had been accepted and the goods manufactured from the imported material were exported. The exports were required to be logged, and denial of the notification benefit was unsustainable. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 22 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=121383