Export obligation removed by notification, customs duty demand invalidated; penalties under s.112 and s.114AA quashed due to inadmissible s.108 statem...
Customs officers must wear and use department-issued body-worn cameras when clearing passenger baggage, with daily secure transfer and 30-day retentio...
The HC affirms the impugned order and dismisses the appeal. The court held that the Official Liquidator, acting pursuant to statutory duty, incurred bona fide preservation and security expenses in reliance on the appellant's officers' statements and court undertakings identifying the subject property as an asset of the company in liquidation. The appellant is estopped and barred by waiver from repudiating those unchallenged undertakings and court orders, and its unexplained, belated objection cannot vitiate the lawful actions of the Official Liquidator. Misrepresentation or suppression by officers undermines the liquidation process and attracts civil and penal consequences. The HC found the Official Liquidator's actions reasonable and justified, and affirmed the impugned order dated 20.04.2022.
The HC affirms the impugned order and dismisses the appeal. The court held that the Official Liquidator, acting pursuant to statutory duty, incurred bona fide preservation and security expenses in reliance on the appellant's officers' statements and court undertakings identifying the subject property as an asset of the company in liquidation. The appellant is estopped and barred by waiver from repudiating those unchallenged undertakings and court orders, and its unexplained, belated objection cannot vitiate the lawful actions of the Official Liquidator. Misrepresentation or suppression by officers undermines the liquidation process and attracts civil and penal consequences. The HC found the Official Liquidator's actions reasonable and justified, and affirmed the impugned order dated 20.04.2022.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.