TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Delhi HC interprets 'prohibited goods' under Customs Act, 1962. Inconsistent govt stance on gold. Adjourned for further hearing.</h1> <h3>NIDHI KAPOOR, SUPRIYA Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER AND ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS</h3> The Delhi HC addressed the definition of 'prohibited goods' under the Customs Act, 1962, with the petitioner challenging a broad interpretation. The ... Scope of definition of ‘prohibited goods’ under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962 - petitioner contends that goods which can otherwise be imported albeit subject to licenses would not fall within the definition of ‘prohibited goods’ - HELD THAT:- The stand in this case appears to be contrary to the stand in that case. There is also lack of clarity as to which goods according to Union of India would be non-prohibited goods but, nonetheless, liable for confiscation. List for further hearing on 16.03.2023. The Delhi High Court addressed the definition of 'prohibited goods' under the Customs Act, 1962, with the petitioner arguing against a broad interpretation. There was inconsistency in the government's stance on whether gold is considered prohibited goods. The case was listed for further hearing on 16.03.2023, with a Senior Advocate appointed as an Amicus Curiae. The parties were directed to provide soft copies of cited decisions to the Amicus Curiae.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
