https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268690 Re-import of jewellery earlier exported was held to remain eligible for exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. where the goods were the same as those exported and the customs notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act permitted re-import within the prescribed period. The 60-day limit in the foreign trade policy was treated as a regulatory condition, not a prohibition on import, so breach of that policy timeline alone did not justify denial of exemption. On that basis, the grounds for confiscation under Section 111(o) and penalty under Section 112(a) did not survive. en-us Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Feb 2016 12:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268690 Re-import of jewellery earlier exported was held to remain eligible for exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus. where the goods were the same as those exported and the customs notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act permitted re-import within the prescribed period. The 60-day limit in the foreign trade policy was treated as a regulatory condition, not a prohibition on import, so breach of that policy timeline alone did not justify denial of exemption. On that basis, the grounds for confiscation under Section 111(o) and penalty under Section 112(a) did not survive. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=268690