https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236180 The court held that the order demanding the entire provisional duty was without jurisdiction and contrary to regulations, as only 20% of the provisional duty should be deposited, and the remaining amount should be secured by a bond. Additionally, the court found the delay in the final assessment order unjustified and modified the order to align with Regulations 2 and 4, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the provisional assessment duty and furnish bonds and guarantees for the remaining amounts. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. en-us Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Nov 2014 15:55:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236180 The court held that the order demanding the entire provisional duty was without jurisdiction and contrary to regulations, as only 20% of the provisional duty should be deposited, and the remaining amount should be secured by a bond. Additionally, the court found the delay in the final assessment order unjustified and modified the order to align with Regulations 2 and 4, directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the provisional assessment duty and furnish bonds and guarantees for the remaining amounts. The petition was disposed of with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 28 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236180