https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122043 Under the advance licence scheme, duty liability had to be re-quantified by factoring in export obligation already fulfilled and the effective customs duty rate, because the demand could not be computed on the full tariff rate after the retrospective amendment to Notification No. 160/92-Cus. Confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act was unsustainable in the absence of wilful non-compliance with the notification conditions, and the related redemption fine and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) also lacked justification. Interest could not be levied where the governing notification did not authorise it. The duty demand required fresh computation and the collateral levies were set aside. en-us Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Aug 2012 11:59:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122043 Under the advance licence scheme, duty liability had to be re-quantified by factoring in export obligation already fulfilled and the effective customs duty rate, because the demand could not be computed on the full tariff rate after the retrospective amendment to Notification No. 160/92-Cus. Confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act was unsustainable in the absence of wilful non-compliance with the notification conditions, and the related redemption fine and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) also lacked justification. Interest could not be levied where the governing notification did not authorise it. The duty demand required fresh computation and the collateral levies were set aside. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 27 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=122043