https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237425 Where the competent export authority extended the export obligation period from eight years to ten years and a redemption letter recorded discharge of that obligation, the customs duty demand could not be sustained because those materials were not properly considered before confirmation of the demand. The Court also held that the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ relief, since the factual position on extension of time and discharge of obligation justified direct interference in writ jurisdiction. The impugned duty demand was quashed and the writ petitions were allowed. en-us Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Sep 2013 17:18:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237425 Where the competent export authority extended the export obligation period from eight years to ten years and a redemption letter recorded discharge of that obligation, the customs duty demand could not be sustained because those materials were not properly considered before confirmation of the demand. The Court also held that the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar writ relief, since the factual position on extension of time and discharge of obligation justified direct interference in writ jurisdiction. The impugned duty demand was quashed and the writ petitions were allowed. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 06 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237425