https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782261 CESTAT Mumbai held that differential duty demand on export of iron ore fines could not be sustained where 13 of 15 shipping bills remained under provisional assessment and finalization lay exclusively with the "proper officer" under ss. 17(4) and 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner, not being the "proper officer," exceeded jurisdiction by dictating the manner of finalization, precluding independent application of mind. As assessments were finalized in 2009 and no suppression or wilful misstatement was established, invocation of the extended limitation period was invalid. The impugned order was set aside and Revenue's appeal was dismissed. en-us Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 Nov 2025 18:26:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782261 CESTAT Mumbai held that differential duty demand on export of iron ore fines could not be sustained where 13 of 15 shipping bills remained under provisional assessment and finalization lay exclusively with the "proper officer" under ss. 17(4) and 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner, not being the "proper officer," exceeded jurisdiction by dictating the manner of finalization, precluding independent application of mind. As assessments were finalized in 2009 and no suppression or wilful misstatement was established, invocation of the extended limitation period was invalid. The impugned order was set aside and Revenue's appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782261