https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426424 Levying a five-times enhanced fee on imported timber, despite phytosanitary certificates from the exporting country and recognition of equivalent fumigation under Clause 9(1)(ii), was held excessive and arbitrary. The Court found no prescribed Indian rule making a different fumigation chemical mandatory and no material showing that the certification issue had been resolved through the relevant international or bilateral process. The enhancement operated as a punitive burden for the exporting country's certification rather than any importer fault, and it unreasonably restricted the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The enhanced fee and corresponding office memorandums were quashed to that extent, while the underlying regulatory power was left intact. en-us Tue, 28 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Aug 2022 08:08:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426424 Levying a five-times enhanced fee on imported timber, despite phytosanitary certificates from the exporting country and recognition of equivalent fumigation under Clause 9(1)(ii), was held excessive and arbitrary. The Court found no prescribed Indian rule making a different fumigation chemical mandatory and no material showing that the certification issue had been resolved through the relevant international or bilateral process. The enhancement operated as a punitive burden for the exporting country's certification rather than any importer fault, and it unreasonably restricted the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g). The enhanced fee and corresponding office memorandums were quashed to that extent, while the underlying regulatory power was left intact. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 28 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426424