 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 61 3.36. Distinction between "for export" and "in the course of export".- This decision raises the question whether, if the words "in the course of", which occur in Article 286(1), had been left undefined, the kind of conclusion arrived at in Khosla's case could have been avoided. The matter, though now academic, is of interest. A distinction between a sale "for export" and a sale "in the course of export1 was well-established by 1956, the former being regarded as outside the exemption (in Article 286), and the latter being regarded as within the exemption. 1. See 30th report, para. 93(3)(a), and the Ben Gorm case, para. 3.37, infra.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back