https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43111 The Court rejected the petitioners' argument equating the additional duty under Section 3(1) to countervailing duty, upholding the Revenue's position. The Court emphasized that the additional duty is distinct from countervailing duty, following a Supreme Court decision clarifying the nature of this duty. The Court ruled against the petitioners, denying their claim for relief and affirming their liability to pay the additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for importing the ship for breaking up. en-us Fri, 11 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 11:49:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43111 The Court rejected the petitioners' argument equating the additional duty under Section 3(1) to countervailing duty, upholding the Revenue's position. The Court emphasized that the additional duty is distinct from countervailing duty, following a Supreme Court decision clarifying the nature of this duty. The Court ruled against the petitioners, denying their claim for relief and affirming their liability to pay the additional duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for importing the ship for breaking up. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 11 Oct 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43111