https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94231 The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, refusing mandamus relief to restrain the 2nd respondent (CESTAT) from insisting on the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129-E(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that Section 129-E requires deposit of 7.5% of the duty/penalty claimed (capped at Rs.10 crore) before entertaining an appeal and declined to exercise discretionary waiver of the pre-deposit on the facts, noting the petitioner's established commercial status and lack of insolvency. Technical disputes as to classification/exemption (crude palmolein v. crude palm oil) were held to be matters for statutory authorities and experts, not for the HC to determine. en-us Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:48 +0530 Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94231 The HC dismissed the petition under Article 226, refusing mandamus relief to restrain the 2nd respondent (CESTAT) from insisting on the mandatory pre-deposit under Section 129-E(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962. The court held that Section 129-E requires deposit of 7.5% of the duty/penalty claimed (capped at Rs.10 crore) before entertaining an appeal and declined to exercise discretionary waiver of the pre-deposit on the facts, noting the petitioner's established commercial status and lack of insolvency. Technical disputes as to classification/exemption (crude palmolein v. crude palm oil) were held to be matters for statutory authorities and experts, not for the HC to determine. Highlights Customs Mon, 17 Nov 2025 08:36:48 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94231