Independent show-cause notices remain separate proceedings, while customs adjudication challenges should ordinarily follow the statutory appellate rem...
Institutional incapacity in customs settlement proceedings excludes non-functional quorum periods from statutory disposal timelines, preventing automa...
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...
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 4786
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
