https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218861 Timing of compliance under Customs Notification No. 93/2004-Cus was treated as decisive for interim relief: the imported goods were diverted to the appellant's own unit in June 2008, before the amendment took effect on 16 July 2008. The notification had to be applied as it stood when the diversion occurred, and a later amendment could not, on these facts, be used to infer an earlier breach. The distinction between any possible violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and liability under the Customs Act was also relevant. On that basis, a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was found. en-us Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Nov 2012 18:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218861 Timing of compliance under Customs Notification No. 93/2004-Cus was treated as decisive for interim relief: the imported goods were diverted to the appellant's own unit in June 2008, before the amendment took effect on 16 July 2008. The notification had to be applied as it stood when the diversion occurred, and a later amendment could not, on these facts, be used to infer an earlier breach. The distinction between any possible violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and liability under the Customs Act was also relevant. On that basis, a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was found. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218861