Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The case pertains to the prohibition on import and confiscation of seven drawings by renowned artists under Customs Notification No. 1/1964, deeming them obscene. The court held that the ability to communicate ideas through art is a legitimate human endeavour and cannot be controlled based on acceptability to authorities. Vesting obscenity determination powers in customs authorities risks arbitrary state behaviour imperilling fundamental freedoms. The impugned order ignored relevant considerations like expert opinions, artistic value, contemporary standards, and legal precedents, relying instead on individualized morality standards, personal prejudices, and frivolous grounds. Relegating the petitioner to departmental appeals risked destruction of the valuable artworks. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed, upholding artistic expression and freedom of speech.
The case pertains to the prohibition on import and confiscation of seven drawings by renowned artists under Customs Notification No. 1/1964, deeming them obscene. The court held that the ability to communicate ideas through art is a legitimate human endeavour and cannot be controlled based on acceptability to authorities. Vesting obscenity determination powers in customs authorities risks arbitrary state behaviour imperilling fundamental freedoms. The impugned order ignored relevant considerations like expert opinions, artistic value, contemporary standards, and legal precedents, relying instead on individualized morality standards, personal prejudices, and frivolous grounds. Relegating the petitioner to departmental appeals risked destruction of the valuable artworks. The impugned order was set aside, and the petition was allowed, upholding artistic expression and freedom of speech.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
