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>Appellant granted liberty to challenge order on gold seizure; Appellate Authority to review legal contentions.</h1> <h3>K. ABDULLA KUNHI ABDUL RAHAMAN Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE</h3> K. ABDULLA KUNHI ABDUL RAHAMAN Versus ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE JOINT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, ... Issues:Challenge to the validity of the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge regarding the communication dated 5.6.2014 for the seizure of gold.Analysis:The appellant challenged the validity of the order dated 22.04.2015 passed by the Single Judge, which dismissed the writ petition regarding the communication dated 5.6.2014 related to the seizure of 1633 grams of gold valued at Rs. 44.66 lakhs at Bangalore Airport on 16.09.2013.The communication dated 5.6.2014 stated that the Show Cause Notice issued on 13.03.2014 by the Joint Director, DRI, Bangalore, regarding the seized gold was within the six-month period as per Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority passed an order on 28.02.2015, as per the appellant, or on 13.03.2014, as per the revenue's counsel.The learned counsel for the appellant requested liberty to file an appeal against the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, and the appeal was disposed of with the appellant granted the liberty to challenge the order dated 28.2.2015 by way of an appeal in accordance with the law. The Appellate Authority was directed to consider all contentions raised by the appellant in law, referring to the findings in the Single Judge's order dated 22.04.2015.In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of, allowing the appellant to challenge the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, with the Appellate Authority instructed to consider all legal contentions raised by the appellant in the appeal process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
