https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95872 The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under N/N. 96/2008-Cus despite an import licence condition stating imports were "subject to" N/N. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the 2012 notification and did not expressly prohibit availing any other exemption otherwise available; hence, reading it as an "if and only if" duty-payment mandate was untenable. Relying on the primacy of DGFT instruments under the FTDR framework, it held customs could recover duty under section 28(1) only if the DGFT cancelled the licence. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty under section 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed - CESTAT en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:03:41 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:03:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95872 The dominant issue was whether an importer could claim customs duty exemption under N/N. 96/2008-Cus despite an import licence condition stating imports were "subject to" N/N. 12/2012-Cus. The Tribunal held that the licence condition merely subjected the import to the 2012 notification and did not expressly prohibit availing any other exemption otherwise available; hence, reading it as an "if and only if" duty-payment mandate was untenable. Relying on the primacy of DGFT instruments under the FTDR framework, it held customs could recover duty under section 28(1) only if the DGFT cancelled the licence. Consequently, the duty demand and penalty under section 112(a)(i) were set aside and the appeal was allowed - CESTAT Highlights Customs Fri, 09 Jan 2026 12:03:41 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95872