https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302502 Where an importer sought the same customs duty concession granted to another importer under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, the Court noted that both consignments were on the same broad footing and no material justified the differential treatment. Because the appellant had already cleared the goods under interim protection at the concessional rate and sold them at the Court-fixed price, it was considered unfair to require payment of the balance duty at that stage. Relief was therefore granted, the differential duty demand was not enforced, and the security furnished to customs was released. en-us Wed, 01 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 May 2022 11:05:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302502 Where an importer sought the same customs duty concession granted to another importer under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, the Court noted that both consignments were on the same broad footing and no material justified the differential treatment. Because the appellant had already cleared the goods under interim protection at the concessional rate and sold them at the Court-fixed price, it was considered unfair to require payment of the balance duty at that stage. Relief was therefore granted, the differential duty demand was not enforced, and the security furnished to customs was released. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 May 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302502