https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78091 The court upheld the legality of the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 12.05.2010, requiring the petitioners to deposit a specified amount and furnish a bank guarantee for differential duty under the Customs Act, 1962. It affirmed that the Assistant Commissioner acted within statutory powers and dismissed the petition. The court directed compliance with the security requirements for provisional duty assessment, allowing for the removal of the wreck upon fulfillment within three working days. The petitioners' request to secure the entire differential duty via a bank guarantee was rejected in favor of the statutory provision. en-us Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Jul 2013 09:53:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78091 The court upheld the legality of the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 12.05.2010, requiring the petitioners to deposit a specified amount and furnish a bank guarantee for differential duty under the Customs Act, 1962. It affirmed that the Assistant Commissioner acted within statutory powers and dismissed the petition. The court directed compliance with the security requirements for provisional duty assessment, allowing for the removal of the wreck upon fulfillment within three working days. The petitioners' request to secure the entire differential duty via a bank guarantee was rejected in favor of the statutory provision. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78091