Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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.
Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 allows proper officers to seize goods liable for confiscation. The Supreme Court in Indru Ramchand Bharvani v. Union of India held that courts should not interfere with fact-finding bodies' conclusions based on preponderance of evidence, unless unreasonable. The preventive wing of customs has jurisdiction to seize goods from domestic cargo complexes, as preventive officers have overall jurisdiction to prevent smuggling under the Customs Act and relevant manuals. Notifications issued u/s 4(1) for administrative convenience should be interpreted to give effect to their purpose, without hair-splitting exercises by courts. Consequently, the seizure by the preventive department was valid, and the High Court order setting it aside was incorrect. The appeal is allowed.