https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48476 Pre-deposit of differential anti-dumping duty was held unjustified where the imports had been made after the earlier duty had already been paid and the enhanced demand arose only because a later notification was given retrospective effect. The HC did not examine the merits of the appeals or the validity of the notification, but found that the petitioners should not be required to deposit the differential amount as a condition for hearing. The pre-deposit orders were quashed and the appeals were directed to be heard on merits in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:47:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48476 Pre-deposit of differential anti-dumping duty was held unjustified where the imports had been made after the earlier duty had already been paid and the enhanced demand arose only because a later notification was given retrospective effect. The HC did not examine the merits of the appeals or the validity of the notification, but found that the petitioners should not be required to deposit the differential amount as a condition for hearing. The pre-deposit orders were quashed and the appeals were directed to be heard on merits in accordance with law. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 08 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48476