https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254305 Re-imported goods sent for repair and re-export remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus where the importer furnished bond and bank guarantee, identity of the goods was undisputed, and Customs did not decide a pending request for extension of time. The Tribunal held that administrative inaction could not defeat the re-export condition when the goods were presented for re-export within the permissible extended period. It also held that the IGM filing date is not the date of import for computing that period, because an IGM may be filed before vessel arrival; the relevant date is entry inward, which did not support the Department's objection. en-us Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2016 10:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254305 Re-imported goods sent for repair and re-export remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus where the importer furnished bond and bank guarantee, identity of the goods was undisputed, and Customs did not decide a pending request for extension of time. The Tribunal held that administrative inaction could not defeat the re-export condition when the goods were presented for re-export within the permissible extended period. It also held that the IGM filing date is not the date of import for computing that period, because an IGM may be filed before vessel arrival; the relevant date is entry inward, which did not support the Department's objection. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 17 Sep 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=254305