https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784647 The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under an earlier notification notwithstanding an import licence condition stating that imports were "subject to" a later notification. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the later notification's regime and did not expressly bar availing any other otherwise-applicable exemption; hence the adjudicating authority's "if and only if" reading was untenable, and the exemption could be claimed. Relying on HC authority on the primacy of the DGFT under the FTDR framework, it further held that Customs could not treat the licence as invalid or demand duty unless the DGFT had cancelled the licence; consequently, the duty demand under s. 28(1) and penalty under s. 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 08:29:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784647 The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under an earlier notification notwithstanding an import licence condition stating that imports were "subject to" a later notification. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the later notification's regime and did not expressly bar availing any other otherwise-applicable exemption; hence the adjudicating authority's "if and only if" reading was untenable, and the exemption could be claimed. Relying on HC authority on the primacy of the DGFT under the FTDR framework, it further held that Customs could not treat the licence as invalid or demand duty unless the DGFT had cancelled the licence; consequently, the duty demand under s. 28(1) and penalty under s. 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 07 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784647