Re-Import Duty Exemption Can’t Be Denied Solely for Lack of ‘Marks and Numbers’ When Identity of Goods Is Proven: CESTAT

The New Delhi Principal Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has ruled that re-import duty exemption can’t be denied solely for lack of ‘marks and numbers’ when identity of goods is proven. The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that benefit of re-import exemption under Notification No. 94/96-Cus cannot be denied merely because the exported and re-imported goods do not bear identifiable “marks and numbers”, so long as the identity of the goods is otherwise established through cogent documentary evidence. The Tribunal accordingly set aside the re-determination of value, confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalty imposed by the customs authorities. The appeal was filed by a Jaipur-based manufacturer of pre-printed polypropylene bags, which had imported sophisticated machinery from Austria. Certain components of the machinery were later exported back to the foreign supplier for repairs and were re-imported after the repairs were completed. At the time of re-import, the assessee filed a Bill of Entry claiming the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus, under which duty is payable only on the cost of repairs, including materials used, insurance and freight. The customs authorities denied the exemption on the ground that the goods exported and re-imported could not be conclusively identified as the same, since they did not bear specific marks and numbers. Treating the goods as fresh imports, the department re-determined their assessable value with the help of a Chartered Engineer, demanded full customs duty, ordered confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, imposed a redemption fine, and levied a penalty under Section 112(a). These findings were affirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals), leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal. Before the CESTAT, the assessee argued that Notification No. 94/96-Cus does not mandate the presence of physical marks or numbers and only requires the Assistant Commissioner to be satisfied that the goods re-imported are the same as those exported. It was contended that this condition stood fulfilled through a chain of documentary evidence, including export invoices, repair invoices, airway bills, order confirmations, and a certificate issued by the foreign supplier certifying that the same components were re-exported after repairs. The Tribunal examined Section 20 of the Customs Act, which generally treats re-imported goods as fresh imports, but noted that Notification No. 94/96-Cus carves out a specific exemption for goods re-imported after repairs. The Bench observed that while the proviso to the notification requires satisfaction regarding identity of goods, it does not prescribe any rigid or mechanical mode—such as mandatory marks and numbers—for establishing such identity. On facts, the Tribunal found that the linkage between the exported and re-imported goods was clearly established through contemporaneous documents. These included commercial invoices describing the defective parts sent abroad for repair on a returnable basis, repair invoices and order confirmations referencing the same machinery, corresponding airway bills, and a specific certificate from the foreign supplier confirming re-export of the repaired components originally received from the appellant. In the Tribunal’s view, this documentary trail was sufficient to satisfy the condition that the goods re-imported were the same as those exported. Holding that the denial of exemption solely on the absence of marks and numbers was unsustainable, the CESTAT allowed the appeal. It ruled that once the exemption notification applied, the re-determination of value, confiscation of goods, redemption fine and penalty had no legal basis. Consequently, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was set aside in toto and the assessee was granted consequential relief Case Details Case Title: Alliance Polysacks Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi Case No.: C/50400/2021 Date: 07/01/2026 Counsel For Appellant: Priyanka Goel, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: Nikhil Mohan Goyal Click Here To Read Order Read More: Jharkhand HC Strikes Down Electricity Duty Amendments, Calls Levy on ‘Net Charges’ Unconstitutional

Re-Import Duty Exemption Can’t Be Denied Solely for Lack of ‘Marks and Numbers’ When Identity of Goods Is Proven: CESTAT

Membership Required

Latest articles

Temporary Customs Duty Waiver on Petrochemical Products Amid West Asia Conflict

38 Assistant Commissioners Transferred from GST & CX to Mumbai Customs

CGST Panchkula Issues Major Transfer Order for Deputy & Assistant Commissioners

Promotions and Postings of Officers Across GST Commissionerates Announced

More like this

Temporary Customs Duty Waiver on Petrochemical Products Amid West Asia Conflict

38 Assistant Commissioners Transferred from GST & CX to Mumbai Customs

CGST Panchkula Issues Major Transfer Order for Deputy & Assistant Commissioners

About us

Company

Categories