1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Seized import goods and requested re-export to overseas buyers plus provisional release; petition withdrawn with liberty to reapply.</h1> A writ petition sought quashing of a seizure memo, re-export of seized goods to overseas buyers/suppliers, and provisional release. The HC declined to ... Seeking withdrawal of petition - quashing of seizure memo - re-export of the goods to the overseas buyers and overseas suppliers as also for provisional release - HELD THAT:- The present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. All pending applications are also disposed of. A writ petition under Article 226 sought quashing of seizure memos dated 26th March, 2025 and 19th May, 2025 relating to imported goods covered by bills of entry dated 13th January, 2025 and 16th January, 2025. The reliefs also included permission for re-export of the goods to overseas buyers/suppliers and provisional release. A preliminary objection was raised that the seizure occurred in Chennai, and therefore the appropriate forum was the Madras High Court; it was also stated that similarly placed parties had filed writ petitions before that court. Following initial submissions, the petitioner elected to withdraw the petition and pursue 'remedies in accordance with law.' The court consequently ordered: 'the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for,' and directed that all pending applications stand disposed of.