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...
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not impose any time limitation for issuing a show cause notice (SCN) for confiscation or penalty imposition. The appellant's plea of the notice being time-barred u/ss 111(m) or 124 cannot be accepted due to the absence of a time limit envisaged in these provisions. The reliance on the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS MMK JEWELLERS & ANOTHER is inapplicable as it pertained to a notice u/s 28 and penalty u/s 114(A). Based on the Mumbai Police report, it is evident that the imported car was mis-declared by tampering the chassis number and year of manufacture, warranting value redetermination at Rs.10,86,735/- u/r 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not impose any time limitation for issuing a show cause notice (SCN) for confiscation or penalty imposition. The appellant's plea of the notice being time-barred u/ss 111(m) or 124 cannot be accepted due to the absence of a time limit envisaged in these provisions. The reliance on the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS MMK JEWELLERS & ANOTHER is inapplicable as it pertained to a notice u/s 28 and penalty u/s 114(A). Based on the Mumbai Police report, it is evident that the imported car was mis-declared by tampering the chassis number and year of manufacture, warranting value redetermination at Rs.10,86,735/- u/r 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
