https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109847 Settlement jurisdiction was upheld where importers had initially declared nil duty under a conditional exemption but later admitted differential customs duty after failing to fulfil the export obligation. The Commission rejected the Revenue's objection that there was no new disclosure, holding that the earlier bill of entry reflected only nil liability and that the later admission of duty before the Commission constituted additional disclosure for settlement purposes. It treated breach of the notification conditions as giving rise to customs duty liability within the settlement framework and held that the bond executed at import did not by itself convert the assessment into one at tariff rate. The applications were permitted to proceed with adjustment of the amount already deposited, release of goods on security, and refusal of instalment payment. en-us Mon, 05 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:17:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109847 Settlement jurisdiction was upheld where importers had initially declared nil duty under a conditional exemption but later admitted differential customs duty after failing to fulfil the export obligation. The Commission rejected the Revenue's objection that there was no new disclosure, holding that the earlier bill of entry reflected only nil liability and that the later admission of duty before the Commission constituted additional disclosure for settlement purposes. It treated breach of the notification conditions as giving rise to customs duty liability within the settlement framework and held that the bond executed at import did not by itself convert the assessment into one at tariff rate. The applications were permitted to proceed with adjustment of the amount already deposited, release of goods on security, and refusal of instalment payment. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 05 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=109847