https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362191 The appeal was allowed as the appellant, based in Dubai, was found not to be the importer and did not file the Bill of Entry. The goods were released to another party after payment of duty and fine, leading to the conclusion that the demand under Section 28 could not be imposed on the appellant. The demand should have been recovered under Section 125(2) according to legal precedents, resulting in the setting aside of the demand and penalty imposed on the appellant. en-us Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jun 2018 06:22:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362191 The appeal was allowed as the appellant, based in Dubai, was found not to be the importer and did not file the Bill of Entry. The goods were released to another party after payment of duty and fine, leading to the conclusion that the demand under Section 28 could not be imposed on the appellant. The demand should have been recovered under Section 125(2) according to legal precedents, resulting in the setting aside of the demand and penalty imposed on the appellant. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 17 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362191