https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784651 The dominant issue was whether exemption under Not. No. 94/96-Cus for re-imported goods after repairs could be denied for lack of physical identification marks. The Tribunal held that, despite absence of marks and numbers, the identity link between exported defective parts and re-imported repaired parts was sufficiently established through contemporaneous documentary evidence, including commercial invoices, airway bills, and the repairer's certificate; therefore, the exemption was allowable. Consequentially, re-determination of value, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty-premised on denial of exemption-were unsustainable, the appellate order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:29:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784651 The dominant issue was whether exemption under Not. No. 94/96-Cus for re-imported goods after repairs could be denied for lack of physical identification marks. The Tribunal held that, despite absence of marks and numbers, the identity link between exported defective parts and re-imported repaired parts was sufficiently established through contemporaneous documentary evidence, including commercial invoices, airway bills, and the repairer's certificate; therefore, the exemption was allowable. Consequentially, re-determination of value, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty-premised on denial of exemption-were unsustainable, the appellate order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784651