https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3853 Re-imported goods after repair or recoating were treated as identifiable as the earlier exported goods, so exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus was available despite the absence of marks and numbers. The omission to intimate the Department at the later export stage was treated as procedural and not fatal. Independently, where no drawback or DEPB benefit had been claimed on the original export, the goods also fell within Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The duty demand was therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3853 Re-imported goods after repair or recoating were treated as identifiable as the earlier exported goods, so exemption under Notification No. 158/95-Cus was available despite the absence of marks and numbers. The omission to intimate the Department at the later export stage was treated as procedural and not fatal. Independently, where no drawback or DEPB benefit had been claimed on the original export, the goods also fell within Notification No. 94/96-Cus. The duty demand was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3853