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...
The HC held that the detention of the petitioner's two gold bangles by Customs was unlawful due to the absence of a show cause notice and denial of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The court rejected reliance on a pre-printed waiver for these procedural safeguards. The jewellery, worn as personal effects during a religious pilgrimage, fell within exemptions under the relevant customs rules. Since the mandatory show cause notice was not issued within the prescribed one-year period, the continued seizure was impermissible. Consequently, the court set aside the detention order and directed the immediate release of the jewellery to the petitioner within two weeks. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
The HC held that the detention of the petitioner's two gold bangles by Customs was unlawful due to the absence of a show cause notice and denial of personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice under Section 124 of the Customs Act. The court rejected reliance on a pre-printed waiver for these procedural safeguards. The jewellery, worn as personal effects during a religious pilgrimage, fell within exemptions under the relevant customs rules. Since the mandatory show cause notice was not issued within the prescribed one-year period, the continued seizure was impermissible. Consequently, the court set aside the detention order and directed the immediate release of the jewellery to the petitioner within two weeks. The petition was accordingly disposed of.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
