https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77890 Customs demand was treated as premature because the export obligation period under the licence had already been extended by the competent foreign trade authority, and that extension had not been placed before the original decision-maker. The Tribunal was held justified in setting aside the demand on that basis, as it applied the earlier view taken on similar facts and no error of law or material irregularity was shown. The challenge to the Tribunal's order therefore failed, and the demand against the importer was not sustained. en-us Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77890 Customs demand was treated as premature because the export obligation period under the licence had already been extended by the competent foreign trade authority, and that extension had not been placed before the original decision-maker. The Tribunal was held justified in setting aside the demand on that basis, as it applied the earlier view taken on similar facts and no error of law or material irregularity was shown. The challenge to the Tribunal's order therefore failed, and the demand against the importer was not sustained. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77890