https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300121 The case involved a dispute over the computation of liability to customs duties on imported goods remaining after export obligation fulfillment. The appellant challenged the demand for recovery of a differential duty, arguing that it should be barred by the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant also contested penalties imposed under Section 114A, questioning the valuation method for unutilized goods and compliance with post-importation conditions. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, considering the lack of intent to evade duty and allowing the appeal based on the limitation period without addressing the correctness of duty computation. en-us Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jan 2022 08:58:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300121 The case involved a dispute over the computation of liability to customs duties on imported goods remaining after export obligation fulfillment. The appellant challenged the demand for recovery of a differential duty, arguing that it should be barred by the limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant also contested penalties imposed under Section 114A, questioning the valuation method for unutilized goods and compliance with post-importation conditions. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, considering the lack of intent to evade duty and allowing the appeal based on the limitation period without addressing the correctness of duty computation. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 05 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300121