https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123330 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. Pentagon Machines & Services (P) Ltd., stating that the bank guarantee amount refund was not governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act. The decision was based on the understanding that the bank guarantee was a security, not a duty payment, and the delay in EODC submission was not the importer's fault. en-us Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Oct 2019 16:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123330 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. Pentagon Machines & Services (P) Ltd., stating that the bank guarantee amount refund was not governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act. The decision was based on the understanding that the bank guarantee was a security, not a duty payment, and the delay in EODC submission was not the importer's fault. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 01 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123330