https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51728 Failure to fulfil export obligation under Notification No. 160/92-Cus. read with para 38 of the EXIM Policy was held not to warrant confiscation and penalty where the importer had furnished a bank guarantee and sought extension, and the lapse did not justify penal action as a matter of judicial discretion; confiscation and penalty were set aside. Demand of interest at 24% was held impermissible in the absence of any statutory provision in the Customs Act, 1962 or the notification authorising interest recovery; the interest demand was set aside. Demand of customs duty consequent to non-fulfilment of export obligation was upheld, and the appeal was partly allowed with consequential relief. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jan 2026 14:27:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51728 Failure to fulfil export obligation under Notification No. 160/92-Cus. read with para 38 of the EXIM Policy was held not to warrant confiscation and penalty where the importer had furnished a bank guarantee and sought extension, and the lapse did not justify penal action as a matter of judicial discretion; confiscation and penalty were set aside. Demand of interest at 24% was held impermissible in the absence of any statutory provision in the Customs Act, 1962 or the notification authorising interest recovery; the interest demand was set aside. Demand of customs duty consequent to non-fulfilment of export obligation was upheld, and the appeal was partly allowed with consequential relief. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 13 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51728