https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772165 A refund refusal based on Board Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs was set aside because the authority did not address the petitioner's material objections, including reliance on an earlier binding decision, the timing of the instruction after sale of the seized gold, and the validity of the alleged prior notices. As the petitioner was not given a meaningful opportunity to meet the material relied upon, the decision-making process was incomplete. The customs authority was directed to reconsider the balance refund claim afresh after supplying the relied-upon material, receiving additional submissions, granting a personal hearing, and passing a speaking order in accordance with law. en-us Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jun 2025 14:31:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772165 A refund refusal based on Board Instruction No. 22/2022-Customs was set aside because the authority did not address the petitioner's material objections, including reliance on an earlier binding decision, the timing of the instruction after sale of the seized gold, and the validity of the alleged prior notices. As the petitioner was not given a meaningful opportunity to meet the material relied upon, the decision-making process was incomplete. The customs authority was directed to reconsider the balance refund claim afresh after supplying the relied-upon material, receiving additional submissions, granting a personal hearing, and passing a speaking order in accordance with law. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=772165