https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365030 Extension of the one-year period for re-importation under Notification No. 94/96-Cus was justified where exported goods were rejected by the foreign buyer after failing FDA testing, and correspondence showed re-importation was necessitated by those circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the goods were later re-exported and the DEPB benefit had been reversed, so the Revenue suffered no loss. On those facts, refusal to extend time was unjustified, the denial of notification benefit was set aside, and the customs demand based on delayed re-importation did not survive. en-us Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Feb 2020 10:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365030 Extension of the one-year period for re-importation under Notification No. 94/96-Cus was justified where exported goods were rejected by the foreign buyer after failing FDA testing, and correspondence showed re-importation was necessitated by those circumstances. The Tribunal noted that the goods were later re-exported and the DEPB benefit had been reversed, so the Revenue suffered no loss. On those facts, refusal to extend time was unjustified, the denial of notification benefit was set aside, and the customs demand based on delayed re-importation did not survive. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365030