Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
Interactive touchscreen panels with integrated computing functions fall under automatic data-processing machines rather than display monitors for cust...
Ex parte injunction service requirements were substantially met, while civil recovery and SFIO investigation into provident fund defalcation continued...
Enforcement of resolution-plan directions continues without a Supreme Court stay, preventing suspension of redistribution and escrowed-fund distributi...
Third-party ownership claims over attached property require Special Court adjudication where purchasers lack registered sale deeds and bona fides rema...
Page of 4796
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
301 to 320 of 95918 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Container storage charges - The High Court upheld the decision of the single judge, stating that since the goods were indeed confiscated by customs authorities while in transit, the port trust was justified in levying container storage charges. The appellant's inactivity after requesting permission to de-stuff the goods did not absolve them of liability. The court dismissed the appellant's argument that containers could not be considered "goods" under the Customs Act. It upheld the legality of the customs authorities' orders of confiscation, as they had the power to confiscate both goods and containers under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
Container storage charges - The High Court upheld the decision of the single judge, stating that since the goods were indeed confiscated by customs authorities while in transit, the port trust was justified in levying container storage charges. The appellant's inactivity after requesting permission to de-stuff the goods did not absolve them of liability. The court dismissed the appellant's argument that containers could not be considered "goods" under the Customs Act. It upheld the legality of the customs authorities' orders of confiscation, as they had the power to confiscate both goods and containers under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4796
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
