https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392561 Customs duty could not be sustained where re-imported jewellery was specifically identified as the same goods earlier exported, with the re-import documents cross-referencing the prior invoice and shipping bill. The assessing authority accepted identity of the goods at re-import and again at re-export after repair and reconditioning, and the minor weight variation was explained by the repair and resetting process. On those facts, condition No. 3 of Notification No. 158/95-Cus was treated as satisfied, so the duty demand was held unsustainable and the order confirming duty was set aside. en-us Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2020 16:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392561 Customs duty could not be sustained where re-imported jewellery was specifically identified as the same goods earlier exported, with the re-import documents cross-referencing the prior invoice and shipping bill. The assessing authority accepted identity of the goods at re-import and again at re-export after repair and reconditioning, and the minor weight variation was explained by the repair and resetting process. On those facts, condition No. 3 of Notification No. 158/95-Cus was treated as satisfied, so the duty demand was held unsustainable and the order confirming duty was set aside. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 21 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392561