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...
Customs relief for Strait of Hormuz maritime disruptions remains available, with existing conditions continuing unchanged through the extended validit...
The High Court quashed the seizure order dated 14.08.2020, holding that it violated Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure memo along with the first petitioner. The petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act, as the seizure memo did not comply with Section 110 by not providing reasons. The contents of the Panchnama could not be read into the seizure memo as per the Notification dated 08.02.2017. The seizing officer failed to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo as required u/s 110(1A), (1B), (1C) of the Customs Act. The impugned seizure memo was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
The High Court quashed the seizure order dated 14.08.2020, holding that it violated Sections 7, 11, 46 and 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 3(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The second petitioner had locus standi to challenge the seizure memo along with the first petitioner. The petitioners were not required to exhaust the alternative remedy u/s 128 of the Customs Act, as the seizure memo did not comply with Section 110 by not providing reasons. The contents of the Panchnama could not be read into the seizure memo as per the Notification dated 08.02.2017. The seizing officer failed to disclose minimal reasons in the seizure memo as required u/s 110(1A), (1B), (1C) of the Customs Act. The impugned seizure memo was unsustainable and deserved to be quashed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
