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...
HC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering release of seized gold jewelry within 7 days. The court determined that Baggage Rules 2016 provision regarding items "carried on the person" was ultra vires to Section 79 of Customs Act 1962, as the Act only authorizes rules for articles in baggage, not worn items. The confiscation order was invalidated due to procedural defects: no show cause notice was issued, inadequate hearing opportunities were provided to the Sri Lankan petitioner, and the seizure was based on contradictory evidence regarding how the jewelry was carried. The court emphasized that jewelry worn by passengers falls outside Baggage Rules 2016 scope unless specifically concealed, requiring Section 101 Customs Act proceedings.
HC ruled in favor of petitioner, ordering release of seized gold jewelry within 7 days. The court determined that Baggage Rules 2016 provision regarding items "carried on the person" was ultra vires to Section 79 of Customs Act 1962, as the Act only authorizes rules for articles in baggage, not worn items. The confiscation order was invalidated due to procedural defects: no show cause notice was issued, inadequate hearing opportunities were provided to the Sri Lankan petitioner, and the seizure was based on contradictory evidence regarding how the jewelry was carried. The court emphasized that jewelry worn by passengers falls outside Baggage Rules 2016 scope unless specifically concealed, requiring Section 101 Customs Act proceedings.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
