Issues: (i) Whether refund of IGST paid on exports to Bhutan could be denied solely because shipping bills were not filed; (ii) Whether penalty for non-filing of shipping bills was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether refund of IGST paid on exports to Bhutan could be denied solely because shipping bills were not filed.

Analysis: The tax invoices established payment of IGST, while the Bhutan invoices, sealing endorsements by CGST officers, examination at the land customs station, and Bhutan import declarations established export and receipt of the consignments. Although the revised procedure required shipping bills, the exports occurred immediately after introduction of the GST regime and were processed by departmental and customs officers without objection. The failure to file shipping bills was therefore a procedural lapse and did not displace the established fact of export or IGST payment.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to refund of the IGST paid, with applicable interest for delayed refund.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty for non-filing of shipping bills was sustainable.

Analysis: The exporter had followed the earlier documentation procedure, and the consignments had been sealed and permitted to cross the border by CGST and customs officers without being directed to follow the revised shipping-bill procedure. The lapse was consequently attributable also to the departmental authorities.

Conclusion: The penalty was unsustainable and was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Documentary proof of export and tax payment prevailed over the procedural omission in the transitional period following implementation of the GST regime.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural omission in export documentation cannot defeat an IGST refund or justify penalty where export, payment of tax, and substantive compliance are established by reliable contemporaneous records.

Issues: (i) Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(a) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 by not obtaining authorisation directly from the importers; (ii) Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 by failing to advise importers regarding compliance and to report alleged overvaluation; (iii) Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 by inadequately verifying the identity, credentials, address and functioning of its importer-clients.

Issue (i): Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(a) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 by not obtaining authorisation directly from the importers.

Analysis: Regulation 10(a) requires a Customs Broker to obtain proper authorisation from its client and produce it when required. The record contained authorisation letters from the importers. The regulation does not mandate that authorisation must invariably be obtained directly from the importer rather than through an intermediary.

Conclusion: No violation of Regulation 10(a) was established; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(d) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 by failing to advise importers regarding compliance and to report alleged overvaluation.

Analysis: No evidence established that the Customs Broker failed to advise its clients to comply with applicable law. The imports were covered by First Check Bills of Entry and underwent customs examination, including physical verification and valuation by approved valuers. A Customs Broker is not required to act as an expert to verify the quality or valuation of imported stones, and the subsequent discovery of inferior quality did not establish a failure to advise or report non-compliance.

Conclusion: No violation of Regulation 10(d) was established; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Customs Broker violated Regulation 10(n) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 by inadequately verifying the identity, credentials, address and functioning of its importer-clients.

Analysis: The Customs Broker obtained IEC, GSTIN, PAN and other KYC documents, along with supporting records, none of which was shown to be forged. Regulation 10(n) requires reliance on reliable, independent and authentic documents; it does not require a Customs Broker to independently verify every government-issued document or physically verify the importer's continued existence and operations at its declared premises. Subsequent field verification revealing that certain importers were unavailable at the stated addresses could not, by itself, establish a breach.

Conclusion: No violation of Regulation 10(n) was established; this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The findings supporting revocation of the Customs Broker licence and forfeiture of the security deposit lacked legal basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A Customs Broker that obtains and relies on authentic KYC and authorisation documents is not required to undertake independent physical verification of the client or assume responsibility for valuation and quality matters examined by customs authorities under First Check assessment.

Issues: Whether an amendment to an exemption notification effective from 15.06.2026 could be relied upon to deny consideration of provisional release of imported goods covered by bills of lading issued before its commencement.

Analysis: The amendment could operate only prospectively because it contained no express provision conferring retrospective effect. It could therefore not govern imports covered by bills of lading issued before the amendment took effect. The request for provisional release was also governed by the established approach applicable to similar imported goods, with no distinguishing feature identified.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be used to refuse consideration of provisional release; the importer's request must be considered under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.

Outcome: The delay-condonation applications were rejected and the appeals were dismissed on the ground of delay.

Issues: (i) Whether a six-digit tariff-classification mismatch between the country-of-origin certificate and the classification determined on import justified denial of the SAFTA preferential-duty benefit; (ii) Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced using NIDB data for allegedly branded goods.

Issue (i): Whether a six-digit tariff-classification mismatch between the country-of-origin certificate and the classification determined on import justified denial of the SAFTA preferential-duty benefit.

Analysis: The origin of the imported goods was undisputed, and the examination disclosed no misdeclaration of their description. The reclassified tariff headings remained within the scope of the exemption. A preferential claim may be denied without verification only in the specified circumstances under the origin-administration rules, none of which was established. The applicable origin rules also require verification and inter-governmental consultation in a dispute and provide that minor discrepancies between the certificate and customs documents do not ipso facto invalidate the certificate.

Conclusion: The country-of-origin certificate remained valid for preferential treatment, and denial of the exemption, differential duty, interest, penalty, confiscation and redemption fine was unsustainable. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced using NIDB data for allegedly branded goods.

Analysis: The alleged brands were not registered under the intellectual-property enforcement framework, and no intellectual-property infringement or investigation establishing counterfeit or genuinely branded goods was shown. The enhancement was based only on NIDB description-based data without examining material factors affecting textile value, including fabric quality, and without evidence discrediting the supplier's invoice or declared price. The prescribed valuation procedure was therefore not followed.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected, and the redetermined assessable value was unsustainable. This issue is in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The imports retain the claimed SAFTA preferential treatment and must be assessed on the declared transaction value; the provisional-release bank guarantee is liable to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff-classification discrepancy in an undisputed country-of-origin certificate does not by itself defeat preferential treatment where the goods remain eligible and no statutory ground for denial is established; declared transaction value cannot be enhanced solely on unsubstantiated NIDB comparisons.

Issues: (i) Whether interest on the customs-duty refund was rightly granted despite the communication stating that the importer could pursue a remedy before a higher forum; (ii) Whether interest on the refund was payable at 12% per annum instead of 6%, and whether it could run from the date of payment of duty.

Issue (i): Whether interest on the customs-duty refund was rightly granted despite the communication stating that the importer could pursue a remedy before a higher forum.

Analysis: The importer had continuously pursued reassessment and refund since 2018, while its refund claims were earlier rejected because assessment had not been finalised. The appellate direction granting interest accounted for these facts and afforded relief consistently with principles of natural justice. Interest was subsequently sanctioned pursuant to that direction.

Conclusion: Interest on the refund was rightly granted, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether interest on the refund was payable at 12% per annum instead of 6%, and whether it could run from the date of payment of duty.

Analysis: The applicable decisions, including the jurisdictional High Court view followed by the Tribunal, supported 12% interest for refund of sums deposited during investigation where no statutory rate governed the claim. However, the period already determined for interest was not challenged by Revenue and did not warrant extension to the date of duty payment.

Conclusion: Interest is payable at 12% per annum, with Revenue liable to pay the additional 6% for the previously determined period; the claim for interest from the date of duty payment is not accepted. This is partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The entitlement to interest on the refund is sustained and the applicable rate is enhanced, while the temporal scope of the interest remains confined to the period already fixed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a governing statutory rate for refund of deposits made during investigation, a claimant is entitled to 12% interest where that rate is mandated by binding jurisdictional precedent; enhancement of the rate does not by itself enlarge the established period of entitlement.

Issues: (i) Whether goods imported as Polyester Quilt Covers can be re-characterised merely because they are capable of subsequent conversion into bed sheets? (ii) Whether valuation can be enhanced solely on the basis of contemporaneous imports without satisfying the mandatory requirements of the Customs Valuation Rules? (iii) Whether confiscation under Section 111(m) and redemption fine imposed under Section 125 can survive when mis-classification and undervaluation are not legally established? (iv) Whether penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable?

Issue (i): Whether goods imported as Polyester Quilt Covers can be re-characterised merely because they are capable of subsequent conversion into bed sheets?

Analysis: Classification must be determined from the condition of goods at importation. The imported articles were folded and stitched quilt covers, constituting made-up articles; possible conversion into bed sheets by removing stitches could not govern classification. De-stitching was not equivalent to separation by cutting dividing threads under Note 7 to Section XI. The Textile Committee's expert opinion supporting classification as polyester woven printed quilt covers was material and had been ignored.

Conclusion: The goods are Polyester Woven Printed Quilt Covers classifiable under CTH 6302, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether valuation can be enhanced solely on the basis of contemporaneous imports without satisfying the mandatory requirements of the Customs Valuation Rules?

Analysis: Rejection of transaction value under Rule 12 required reasonable doubt founded on objective evidence. There was no evidence of additional remittance, relationship, fabricated invoices, or falsity of the declared price. The alleged contemporaneous imports were bed sheets and had not been shown comparable regarding manufacturer, quality, GSM, construction, brand, finish, commercial level, or quantity; hence Rule 5 could not support enhancement.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value cannot be rejected or enhanced on the stated basis, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation under Section 111(m) and redemption fine imposed under Section 125 can survive when mis-classification and undervaluation are not legally established?

Analysis: Since neither misclassification nor undervaluation was established, the necessary basis for confiscation for misdeclaration was absent. Further, no market enquiry had been conducted for determining market price before fixing redemption fine.

Conclusion: Confiscation and redemption fine are unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is sustainable?

Analysis: The allegations of misclassification and undervaluation having failed, the ingredients required for imposition of penalty were not established.

Conclusion: The penalty under Section 112(a) is unsustainable, in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The declared classification and transaction value stand restored, and the consequential confiscatory and penal liabilities cannot be maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Imported goods must be classified in their condition as presented, and transaction value cannot be rejected merely on unverified comparisons with non-comparable imports without objective grounds satisfying the valuation rules.

Issues: Whether LED modules comprising multiple LEDs mounted on a PCB, without driver or control circuitry, are classifiable under CTH 8539 or under CTH 9405 as lamps, lighting fittings or parts thereof.

Analysis: Classification is governed sequentially by the General Rules for Interpretation, beginning with the tariff headings and relevant Section and Chapter Notes. HSN Explanatory Notes provide binding guidance where aligned with the tariff. CTH 9405 is confined to lamps, lighting fittings and parts not elsewhere specified or included, whereas CTH 8539 specifically covers LED lamps. The imported modules lacked active circuitry, driver or control gear and were not complete street lamps or lighting fixtures. Their intended use in manufacturing street lights could not determine classification; classification depends on the goods' essential character and condition at importation. Since the modules could function as LED lamps upon connection to an electrical supply and were specifically covered elsewhere, resort to the residuary CTH 9405 was impermissible.

Conclusion: The LED modules are classifiable under CTH 8539 and not under CTH 9405; no differential customs duty was payable. This conclusion is in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether bulk drugs/Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients imported for manufacture of formulations, testing, examination, analysis, clinical research, clinical trials, bioavailability studies or bioequivalence studies qualify as drugs under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I to Notification No. 9/2025-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 17.09.2025 and attract IGST at 5%.

Analysis: IGST on imports is governed by Section 3(7) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, while Serial No. 226 covers all drugs and medicines under Chapter 30 or any Chapter. The inclusive definition of drug in Section 3(b) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 includes substances intended for use as components of a drug. Read with the definition of bulk drug/API under the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 2013, APIs are drugs because they are pharmaceutical substances used as such or as ingredients in formulations.

Analysis: Regulatory licences for import under Forms 10, 11 and CT-17 treat the APIs as drugs. Their intended use for examination, testing, analysis, clinical trials, bioavailability studies or bioequivalence studies does not change their essential statutory character. The description-based entry in Serial No. 226 applies to drugs falling under any Chapter and, being specific to drugs, prevails over the general entries for inorganic and organic chemicals under Chapters 28 and 29. The entry is a rate notification and not an exemption notification.

Conclusion: Bulk drugs/APIs, including those imported for manufacture, testing, analysis, clinical research, clinical trials, bioavailability studies or bioequivalence studies, qualify as drugs under Serial No. 226 of Schedule I and are chargeable to IGST at 5%, provided they are not covered by the nil-rated Serial No. 113 entry.

Issues: Whether disciplinary proceedings against a customs broker for alleged breach of its advisory and due-diligence obligations could be sustained on show cause notices that did not specify the allegations or the manner of contravention.

Analysis: The notices merely reproduced material from proceedings concerning import misclassification and undervaluation, without identifying how that material established any breach by the customs broker. The adjudication orders supplied particulars not contained in the notices. The notices were materially identical to notices previously invalidated in the appellant's own case, whose invalidation had been affirmed by the High Court. A vague notice deprives the noticee of a meaningful opportunity to meet the case and an adjudication cannot travel beyond its foundation notice.

Conclusion: The show cause notices were vague and unsustainable; the consequential revocation of licence, forfeiture of security deposit and penalty orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issues: Whether the extended period of limitation was validly invoked for recovery of customs duty arising from misclassification of imported optical network equipment and wrongful availment of exemption notifications.

Analysis: The appellant adopted inconsistent tariff classifications for technically similar equipment across imports and ports, while claiming nil or concessional duty as subscriber-end equipment. It continued the disputed classification and exemption claim despite provisional reassessment of a bill of entry under the applicable tariff heading. The product-approval documentation described the goods as GPON ONT and did not support their description as subscriber-end equipment. The appellant neither exercised due diligence in self-assessment nor sought provisional assessment in case of ambiguity. These circumstances established deliberate misclassification and ineligible availment of exemption benefits with intent to evade customs duty.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was rightly invoked; the demand and related findings are sustained against the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the declared transaction value of the imported Maserati GranTurismo was rightly rejected and the assessable value enhanced under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Serial No. 344(2) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 01.03.2002? (ii) Whether the confiscation of the imported vehicle and the consequential redemption fine and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 are sustainable?

Issue (i): Whether the declared transaction value of the imported Maserati GranTurismo was rightly rejected and the assessable value enhanced under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, and whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Serial No. 344(2) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 01.03.2002?

Analysis: Transaction value has statutory primacy, but Rule 12 permits its rejection where cogent and reliable material creates reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy. Contemporaneous invoices for the same vehicle, bearing the same date and currency but recording materially different values, together with official overseas verification, electronic correspondence and commercial records, established deliberate undervaluation. However, refundable VAT in the exporting country did not form part of the price actually paid or payable for export to India and was not includible in assessable value.

Analysis: Eligibility for exemption is independent of valuation. Under the applicable circular, registration abroad merely as a statutory or transportation formality does not establish that a vehicle was used. In the absence of evidence of actual prior use, temporary registration in the United Kingdom did not render the vehicle a used motor vehicle. The appellant satisfied the conditions for the exemption.

Conclusion: The rejection of declared value and enhancement of assessable value were upheld, excluding refundable VAT; the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Serial No. 344(2) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 01.03.2002. The issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the confiscation of the imported vehicle and the consequential redemption fine and penalties imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 are sustainable?

Analysis: Deliberate misdeclaration of value rendered the vehicle liable to confiscation under Section 111(m), independently of eligibility for the exemption. Redemption fine could not be imposed because the vehicle had already been cleared and was unavailable for confiscation. Since duty required recalculation after allowing the exemption and excluding VAT, the penalty linked to duty required corresponding modification; the separate intermediary penalty was sustained.

Conclusion: Confiscation and the penalty under Section 112(a) were sustained; redemption fine was set aside; and the penalty under Section 114A was to be confined to the recalculated differential duty. The issue was decided partly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessable value, duty liability, interest and duty-linked penalty require limited recalculation after exclusion of refundable VAT and application of the available vehicle exemption, while the findings of undervaluation and confiscability remain operative.

Ratio Decidendi: A declared customs value may be rejected on independently corroborated contemporaneous evidence of undervaluation; temporary foreign registration without proof of actual use does not defeat an exemption available to a new motor vehicle, and redemption fine is impermissible where cleared goods are unavailable for confiscation.

Issues: Whether the appeal concerning a gold ornament found worn on an arriving passenger's wrist was barred from the Tribunal's jurisdiction as relating to goods imported as baggage under the first proviso to Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The statutory exclusion applies only where the impugned order in fact relates to goods imported or exported as baggage. The passenger's arrival from abroad or interception at an international airport does not, by itself, establish that an article worn on the body is baggage. Since the gold kada was recovered from the appellant's wrist rather than from checked-in or hand baggage, and its character as a personal ornament, its declarability and the allegation of concealment remained disputed, the jurisdictional fact necessary to invoke the exclusion was not conclusively established. Precedents involving goods admittedly recovered from passenger baggage or luggage were factually distinguishable.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection was rejected; the appeal was held maintainable before the Tribunal.

Issues: Whether imported flavour compound classified under CTH 3302.10 was excluded from exemption under Sl. No. 119 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus as a compound alcoholic preparation of a kind used for manufacture of beverages.

Analysis: The exclusion applies only where the imported goods are established to be compound alcoholic preparations of the prescribed alcoholic strength and of a kind used in the manufacture of beverages. The earlier ruling concerning beverage flavours did not permit denial of exemption for flavours not sold to beverage manufacturers without a categorical finding that they were of a kind used for beverage manufacture. The goods were supplied pursuant to an order from a tobacco-products manufacturer, while Revenue produced no conclusive material establishing their use or suitability for beverage manufacture. Further, the denial rested on a previous test report, with no test report shown to have been drawn for the consignment under import.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not proved to fall within the excluded category under Sl. No. 119 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus; the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

Issues: Whether penalties for abetment of smuggling and confiscation of the vehicle could be sustained without evidence that the driver or hotel operators knew of, or participated in, the passengers' gold-smuggling activity.

Analysis: Gold was recovered from the passengers and not from the appellants. The driver's act of transporting passengers, without corroborative evidence connecting him with the smuggling activity, did not establish involvement or knowledge. Likewise, no evidence established that the hotel operators had knowledge of, or any connection with, the activity of the persons from whom the gold was recovered.

Conclusion: The penalties and vehicle confiscation were unsustainable; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issues: (i) Whether the stay of proceedings under one show-cause notice barred adjudication of another notice arising from the same investigation; (ii) Whether the challenge to the adjudication order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an efficacious statutory appeal; (iii) Whether the Court should decide the limitation and validity issues concerning the pending adjudication under the second show-cause notice.

Issue (i): Whether the stay of proceedings under one show-cause notice barred adjudication of another notice arising from the same investigation.

Analysis: The two notices concerned distinct subject matters and had separate statutory foundations, notwithstanding their origin in a common investigation, assignment to a common adjudicating authority, and common hearings. The interim order expressly stayed only proceedings under the second notice. Its scope could not be enlarged by implication to restrain adjudication under the first notice. Administrative convenience of common hearings did not merge the independent proceedings or require a composite order.

Conclusion: The stay concerning the second show-cause notice did not bar adjudication of the first show-cause notice; this finding is against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the challenge to the adjudication order should be entertained in writ jurisdiction despite an efficacious statutory appeal.

Analysis: The objections regarding denial of hearing, non-supply of relied-upon documents, justification for adjournments, appreciation of evidence, and legality of the adjudication findings involved matters suitable for examination on the adjudication record. The statutory appellate forum was competent to examine all such grounds. No exceptional circumstance justified bypassing that remedy under Article 226.

Conclusion: The challenge to the adjudication order was not entertained in writ jurisdiction, leaving the assessee to pursue the statutory appeal; this finding is against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the Court should decide the limitation and validity issues concerning the pending adjudication under the second show-cause notice.

Analysis: The limitation, Call Book, extension, and communication questions arose directly in an adjudication that remained pending and had not attained finality. A determination by the Court could affect the adjudicating authority's decision. The matters were therefore left for consideration in the statutory proceedings, with an effective hearing to be afforded before a final order.

Conclusion: No ruling was made on the merits of the pending second show-cause notice; all factual and legal contentions were kept open.

Final Conclusion: The first adjudication remains subject to the statutory appellate process, while adjudication under the second notice may proceed afresh in accordance with natural justice and without any merits determination in the writ proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate show-cause notices retain independent legal character notwithstanding a common investigation or joint hearings, and writ jurisdiction ordinarily will not displace an efficacious statutory appellate remedy absent exceptional circumstances.

Issues: Whether a refund claim for interest paid under Section 47(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, filed after one year from payment, is maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: Section 27 requires a claim for refund of duty or interest to be made within one year from the date of payment, except where payment was under protest. No written protest was established; payment to generate electronic challans and complete clearance did not constitute payment under protest. A claim presented before customs authorities remains governed by the statutory refund mechanism, including limitation, even where the amount is alleged to have been collected without authority of law. Statutory authorities and the Tribunal lack power to extend the prescribed period on grounds of technical difficulty, bona fides, hardship, or late awareness of procedure. Administrative waiver orders could not override the statutory limitation in the absence of an express statutory exclusion.

Conclusion: The refund claim filed on 20.06.2024 for interest paid on 18.04.2023 and 22.04.2023 was time-barred under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962; the issue is decided against the assessee.

Issues: Whether an appeal against an order relating to gold chains imported as passenger baggage is maintainable before the Tribunal.

Analysis: The first proviso to Section 129A(1) excludes the Tribunal's appellate jurisdiction over orders relating to goods imported or exported as baggage. The goods were admittedly brought by the passenger from Kuwait in checked-in baggage, and the proceedings concerned their seizure, confiscation and penalty for alleged non-declaration and improper importation. Questions concerning the place of interception, eligibility to import gold on payment of duty, declaration, confiscation and penalty concern the merits and cannot overcome the statutory exclusion. The prescribed remedy lies before the competent Revisional Authority under Section 129DD.

Conclusion: The appeal is not maintainable before the Tribunal; the statutory remedy is revision before the competent Revisional Authority.

Issues: Whether a customs demand or recovery can be sustained after approval of the appellant's resolution plan by the NCLT.

Analysis: Insolvency proceedings had been initiated and the resolution plan was subsequently approved by the NCLT under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The approved plan governed the claims and liabilities of the corporate debtor.

Conclusion: No demand or recovery is sustainable against the assessee after approval of the resolution plan.

Issues: Whether the customs authorities could rely on an exemption-notification amendment that commenced after the bills of lading to decline consideration of provisional release of the imported goods.

Analysis: The bills of lading pre-dated the commencement of the amendment. In the absence of express retrospective operation, a statutory notification operates prospectively and could not govern the imports concerned. The request for provisional release of similar goods had also been addressed in an earlier common order, with no distinguishing feature shown.

Conclusion: The amendment could not be relied upon to refuse consideration of provisional release. The authorities were required to consider the request under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, impose lawful conditions, and release the goods provisionally upon compliance, without affecting the independent adjudication proceedings.