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...
Pure-agent reimbursements in clearing and forwarding services are excluded from taxable value when qualifying third-party payments are properly record...
The High Court addressed the issue of seizure of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by Customs Authorities outside their designated area. The jurisdiction of concerned Officers to seize "gold bullions" was questioned as the Customs House did not fall within the jurisdictional area of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) West Bengal. The Court noted the absence of an application for release or provisional release u/s 110A. The ownership of the goods was in dispute, and the petitioner failed to establish ownership. The seizure order by Customs Officers was found to be without jurisdictional error, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
The High Court addressed the issue of seizure of goods u/s 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 by Customs Authorities outside their designated area. The jurisdiction of concerned Officers to seize "gold bullions" was questioned as the Customs House did not fall within the jurisdictional area of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) West Bengal. The Court noted the absence of an application for release or provisional release u/s 110A. The ownership of the goods was in dispute, and the petitioner failed to establish ownership. The seizure order by Customs Officers was found to be without jurisdictional error, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4782
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
