Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The case involved a dispute over the refund of a cash security deposit u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund on the grounds of time limitation u/s 27 was incorrect. The deposit was made as security for provisional assessment by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB). Once the SVB accepted the declared value, the security became refundable. Rule 18(2) states that any excess amount paid by the appellant should be refunded upon finalization of assessment within three months u/s 18(4). Section 18(5) is independent of Section 27. The impugned order wrongly applied the limitation u/s 27, whereas the refund should have been processed u/s 18(4). The appeal was allowed.
The case involved a dispute over the refund of a cash security deposit u/s 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Appellate Tribunal held that the rejection of the refund on the grounds of time limitation u/s 27 was incorrect. The deposit was made as security for provisional assessment by the Special Valuation Branch (SVB). Once the SVB accepted the declared value, the security became refundable. Rule 18(2) states that any excess amount paid by the appellant should be refunded upon finalization of assessment within three months u/s 18(4). Section 18(5) is independent of Section 27. The impugned order wrongly applied the limitation u/s 27, whereas the refund should have been processed u/s 18(4). The appeal was allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
