https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198417 Permission for ex post facto extension of the re-export period under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. was considered where the goods had in fact been re-exported beyond the initial six-month period. The notification allowed the Commissioner to grant a further extension of up to six months, and the delay was explained by circumstances such as frequent electricity cuts. As the Commissioner had declined extension mainly because the request was made after expiry without examining the reasons for delay, the matter was remanded for lenient reconsideration. Once factual re-export was undisputed, the customs duty and interest demand could not survive and was set aside. en-us Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Jan 2018 07:48:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198417 Permission for ex post facto extension of the re-export period under Notification No. 158/95-Cus. was considered where the goods had in fact been re-exported beyond the initial six-month period. The notification allowed the Commissioner to grant a further extension of up to six months, and the delay was explained by circumstances such as frequent electricity cuts. As the Commissioner had declined extension mainly because the request was made after expiry without examining the reasons for delay, the matter was remanded for lenient reconsideration. Once factual re-export was undisputed, the customs duty and interest demand could not survive and was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 29 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198417