https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49151 Training abroad by a Government servant was treated as falling within "work abroad" for Rule 4A of the Baggage Rules, 1978, because the distinction between training and work was regarded as immaterial in that context. The later Customs notification adding an explanation to include Government officials deputed on training abroad was considered clarificatory, not a substantive change, and therefore capable of operating retrospectively. On that basis, the benefit of Rule 4A remained available to the respondent, and the review challenge was found to have no merit. en-us Fri, 27 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:18:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49151 Training abroad by a Government servant was treated as falling within "work abroad" for Rule 4A of the Baggage Rules, 1978, because the distinction between training and work was regarded as immaterial in that context. The later Customs notification adding an explanation to include Government officials deputed on training abroad was considered clarificatory, not a substantive change, and therefore capable of operating retrospectively. On that basis, the benefit of Rule 4A remained available to the respondent, and the review challenge was found to have no merit. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 27 Aug 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49151