https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73263 The Tribunal upheld the duty demand against the respondents for lost or stolen Di-Ammonium Phosphate, ruling that the exemption notification did not absolve them of liability post-clearance. The Tribunal rejected arguments of time limitation and remission, emphasizing the importer's obligation to prove proper use of the goods. It set aside the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay's decision and reinstated the Assistant Collector of Customs Jamnagar's ruling, affirming the duty payment obligation on the respondents. en-us Tue, 15 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 May 2011 16:34:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73263 The Tribunal upheld the duty demand against the respondents for lost or stolen Di-Ammonium Phosphate, ruling that the exemption notification did not absolve them of liability post-clearance. The Tribunal rejected arguments of time limitation and remission, emphasizing the importer's obligation to prove proper use of the goods. It set aside the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Bombay's decision and reinstated the Assistant Collector of Customs Jamnagar's ruling, affirming the duty payment obligation on the respondents. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 15 Sep 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=73263