https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386853 Bank guarantee security required to permit a vessel to move outside customs jurisdiction was held no longer necessary once the vessel was brought back, the earlier seizure was quashed, and the assessee had filed an appeal after making the required pre-deposit. The Court reasoned that continued insistence on the guarantee and the director's undertaking was unjustified during pendency of the appeal, especially where coercive recovery was restrained. The Customs interest was protected by requiring a fresh undertaking that the vessel would not leave customs jurisdiction without leave of the appellate tribunal. The request to extend the bank guarantee was rejected and discharge of the guarantee, with relief from the prior undertaking, was granted. en-us Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2019 13:14:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386853 Bank guarantee security required to permit a vessel to move outside customs jurisdiction was held no longer necessary once the vessel was brought back, the earlier seizure was quashed, and the assessee had filed an appeal after making the required pre-deposit. The Court reasoned that continued insistence on the guarantee and the director's undertaking was unjustified during pendency of the appeal, especially where coercive recovery was restrained. The Customs interest was protected by requiring a fresh undertaking that the vessel would not leave customs jurisdiction without leave of the appellate tribunal. The request to extend the bank guarantee was rejected and discharge of the guarantee, with relief from the prior undertaking, was granted. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386853