https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420550 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by M/s Mukesh Steel challenging the terms of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the security deposit set by the Competent Authority to be excessive at 2.5 times the differential duty amount. Considering the origin of the goods and the absence of a Show Cause Notice for some items, the Tribunal reduced the security amount to match the duty quantified in the order. The bond amount remained unchanged, emphasizing the need for proportionality in setting security deposits. en-us Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:08:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420550 The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by M/s Mukesh Steel challenging the terms of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal found the security deposit set by the Competent Authority to be excessive at 2.5 times the differential duty amount. Considering the origin of the goods and the absence of a Show Cause Notice for some items, the Tribunal reduced the security amount to match the duty quantified in the order. The bond amount remained unchanged, emphasizing the need for proportionality in setting security deposits. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 31 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420550