https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373818 The Civil Aviation Requirement dated 1.6.2010 was treated as applicable to all non-scheduled operator permit holders, including those with earlier permits, because the text expressly extended its reach. The Tribunal also upheld its distinction of the VRL Logistics reference on factual grounds, including differences from the King Rotors and Air Charter situations. A challenge to demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act was rejected as merely academic after the finding that post-import conditions were not violated. No natural justice breach was found in directing return of the bond and bank guarantee within a fixed period, though the compliance time was extended. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Jan 2019 09:42:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373818 The Civil Aviation Requirement dated 1.6.2010 was treated as applicable to all non-scheduled operator permit holders, including those with earlier permits, because the text expressly extended its reach. The Tribunal also upheld its distinction of the VRL Logistics reference on factual grounds, including differences from the King Rotors and Air Charter situations. A challenge to demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act was rejected as merely academic after the finding that post-import conditions were not violated. No natural justice breach was found in directing return of the bond and bank guarantee within a fixed period, though the compliance time was extended. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373818