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 High Court held that the personal gold jewelry, consisting of a necklace and bracelet weighing 0.178 grams, worn by a tourist traveling from Azerbaijan to India, would not be liable for seizure as prohibited goods. The Court quashed the detention receipt and directed the release of the personal gold jewelry to the Petitioner within one week, considering it as personal effects exempt from the Baggage Rules, 2016.
The High Court held that the personal gold jewelry, consisting of a necklace and bracelet weighing 0.178 grams, worn by a tourist traveling from Azerbaijan to India, would not be liable for seizure as prohibited goods. The Court quashed the detention receipt and directed the release of the personal gold jewelry to the Petitioner within one week, considering it as personal effects exempt from the Baggage Rules, 2016.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
