TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Highlights
of of All Highlights
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of HC invalidated confiscation orders regarding seized gold ornaments worn by petitioners at arrival. Court found multiple procedural violations: no show cause notice issued, denial of proper hearing, and falsification of Mahazar (seizure document) by customs officials. Officials falsely claimed jewelry was concealed under sleeves when petitioners were wearing it openly. Significantly, HC ruled that Baggage Rules 2016 provision regarding items 'carried on the person' was ultra vires the Customs Act 1962. The rule-making authority exceeded statutory scope by regulating worn jewelry. Court directed release of seized items within 7 days, finding officials orchestrated false case potentially to benefit unknown parties. Ruling establishes that jewelry worn by passengers falls outside Baggage Rules 2016 purview unless deliberately concealed under Section 101 of Customs Act.
TaxTMI 