https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398151 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, an EPCG license holder, in a case challenging impugned notices for customs duty and interest issued years after obtaining Export Obligation Discharge Certificates. The Court held that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to review orders under Section 16 of the FTDR Act, emphasizing that only the Director General of Foreign Trade has such authority. It also determined that the limitation period for review starts from the date of the decision, not from the demand notices, and dismissed the argument that failure to opt for a personal hearing barred seeking relief through Writ Petitions. The Court quashed the impugned notices, affirming the petitioner's entitlement to relief. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398151 The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, an EPCG license holder, in a case challenging impugned notices for customs duty and interest issued years after obtaining Export Obligation Discharge Certificates. The Court held that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to review orders under Section 16 of the FTDR Act, emphasizing that only the Director General of Foreign Trade has such authority. It also determined that the limitation period for review starts from the date of the decision, not from the demand notices, and dismissed the argument that failure to opt for a personal hearing barred seeking relief through Writ Petitions. The Court quashed the impugned notices, affirming the petitioner's entitlement to relief. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 02 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398151