https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349317 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand of &8377; 2,35,00,000/- along with interest and penalty against the appellant, a merchant exporter, for non-fulfillment of export obligations regarding imported goods. The Tribunal ruled that the duty demand should have been against the co-authorization holders who were the actual importers, not the appellant. The appellant, having jointly executed the bond with the co-authorization holders, was not liable for the duty payment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the impugned order was overturned on 08.09.2017. en-us Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Apr 2018 11:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349317 The Tribunal set aside the duty demand of &8377; 2,35,00,000/- along with interest and penalty against the appellant, a merchant exporter, for non-fulfillment of export obligations regarding imported goods. The Tribunal ruled that the duty demand should have been against the co-authorization holders who were the actual importers, not the appellant. The appellant, having jointly executed the bond with the co-authorization holders, was not liable for the duty payment. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant, and the impugned order was overturned on 08.09.2017. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 08 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349317