https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44492 A direction to implement the Tribunal's order was upheld because it was not prejudicial to the Revenue: the Department was left free to insist on a customs surety or security bond to protect the disputed amount if the appeal succeeded. The Court also recognised that the Department could require a solvent surety supported by a solvency certificate, and that implementation would not arise if the Supreme Court granted interim relief. No interference was warranted, the appeal was dismissed, and the time for implementation of the Tribunal's order was extended by two weeks. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:34:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44492 A direction to implement the Tribunal's order was upheld because it was not prejudicial to the Revenue: the Department was left free to insist on a customs surety or security bond to protect the disputed amount if the appeal succeeded. The Court also recognised that the Department could require a solvent surety supported by a solvency certificate, and that implementation would not arise if the Supreme Court granted interim relief. No interference was warranted, the appeal was dismissed, and the time for implementation of the Tribunal's order was extended by two weeks. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 26 Sep 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44492