https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253636 Import under Notification No. 158/95-Cus failed because the re-export condition was not fulfilled, raising the question whether pre-deposit could be waived pending appeal. The Tribunal treated prior precedent as permitting recourse to Notification No. 94/96-Cus where the duty liability was discharged, and held that deposit of the duty and interest payable, together with adjustment of any amount recoverable through encashment of the bank guarantee, would satisfy the requirement for hearing the appeal. On that basis, recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeal, subject to compliance within the time granted. en-us Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Nov 2014 17:29:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253636 Import under Notification No. 158/95-Cus failed because the re-export condition was not fulfilled, raising the question whether pre-deposit could be waived pending appeal. The Tribunal treated prior precedent as permitting recourse to Notification No. 94/96-Cus where the duty liability was discharged, and held that deposit of the duty and interest payable, together with adjustment of any amount recoverable through encashment of the bank guarantee, would satisfy the requirement for hearing the appeal. On that basis, recovery was stayed during pendency of the appeal, subject to compliance within the time granted. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 09 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=253636