Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
HC held that failure to serve Show Cause Notice within six months under Section 124(a) read with Section 110 of Customs Act 1962 entitled the respondent to return of seized goods. While subsequent confiscation order was valid, it operated independently of the original seizure dispute. The court ruled that immediate possession must be restored to respondent despite confiscation order, maintaining status quo ante until enforcement. The interpretation of "given" in the statute requires actual service, not mere issuance of notice. Authorities were directed to return seized gold within four weeks, though confiscation rights remained preserved for separate enforcement.
HC held that failure to serve Show Cause Notice within six months under Section 124(a) read with Section 110 of Customs Act 1962 entitled the respondent to return of seized goods. While subsequent confiscation order was valid, it operated independently of the original seizure dispute. The court ruled that immediate possession must be restored to respondent despite confiscation order, maintaining status quo ante until enforcement. The interpretation of "given" in the statute requires actual service, not mere issuance of notice. Authorities were directed to return seized gold within four weeks, though confiscation rights remained preserved for separate enforcement.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
