https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367554 Duty-free imports under advance authorisation were held to retain exemption where the goods were sent to job workers for processing, ownership was not shown to have passed, export obligations were fulfilled, and foreign exchange was realised. The failure to endorse every processing unit was treated as a curable procedural lapse, not a substantive breach. In the absence of proof of sale, diversion, or clandestine disposal in the domestic market, demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty against the importer were set aside. As the co-noticees' penalties depended on the same alleged diversion, those penalties also failed. en-us Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Sep 2018 17:08:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367554 Duty-free imports under advance authorisation were held to retain exemption where the goods were sent to job workers for processing, ownership was not shown to have passed, export obligations were fulfilled, and foreign exchange was realised. The failure to endorse every processing unit was treated as a curable procedural lapse, not a substantive breach. In the absence of proof of sale, diversion, or clandestine disposal in the domestic market, demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty against the importer were set aside. As the co-noticees' penalties depended on the same alleged diversion, those penalties also failed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Sep 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367554