https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109575 CESTAT, Mumbai declined modification of the stay order on alleged financial hardship because the hardship plea had not been raised in the stay application and no sufficient basis was shown. On the confiscation issue, it held that the goods were, on a prima facie view, neither prohibited for export nor liable to export duty, so invocation of Section 113(d) and 113(l) of the Customs Act did not appear justified. Conditional permission to export the goods against security was therefore granted, subject to execution of a bank guarantee. en-us Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:06:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109575 CESTAT, Mumbai declined modification of the stay order on alleged financial hardship because the hardship plea had not been raised in the stay application and no sufficient basis was shown. On the confiscation issue, it held that the goods were, on a prima facie view, neither prohibited for export nor liable to export duty, so invocation of Section 113(d) and 113(l) of the Customs Act did not appear justified. Conditional permission to export the goods against security was therefore granted, subject to execution of a bank guarantee. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 07 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109575