https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267639 The court held that the appellant was not entitled to clear goods under certain notifications without ensuring compliance with pre-clearance conditions. The appellant was found liable for the duty differentials due to their failure to ensure their customers' compliance. The court rejected the delayed production of certificates and emphasized timely compliance. The computation of countervailing duty was based on statutory provisions, distinguishing a previous case. Benefits under certain notifications were subject to re-examination. The court set aside demands for duty and redemption fine, remanding specific issues for further review by the Commissioner. Compliance with exemption conditions was underscored, with responsibilities highlighted for the appellant. en-us Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Nov 2015 00:39:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267639 The court held that the appellant was not entitled to clear goods under certain notifications without ensuring compliance with pre-clearance conditions. The appellant was found liable for the duty differentials due to their failure to ensure their customers' compliance. The court rejected the delayed production of certificates and emphasized timely compliance. The computation of countervailing duty was based on statutory provisions, distinguishing a previous case. Benefits under certain notifications were subject to re-examination. The court set aside demands for duty and redemption fine, remanding specific issues for further review by the Commissioner. Compliance with exemption conditions was underscored, with responsibilities highlighted for the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 05 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=267639