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...
HC dismissed the petition and directed respondents to release the imported goods only to the extent permissible under the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 01.01.2025, holding the Order's compliance relief applies exclusively to domestic manufacturers (including micro and small enterprises) certified by or having applied to the Bureau, and not to importers. The Court upheld a departmental clarification reiterating the manufacturer-centric scope, found no jurisdictional defect, breach of natural justice, or apparent error in the impugned adjudicatory order, and declined to exercise Article 226 discretion given availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner may challenge the order before the CESTAT; time spent in the writ will be credited; petition dismissed.
HC dismissed the petition and directed respondents to release the imported goods only to the extent permissible under the Medical Textiles (Quality Control) Order, 01.01.2025, holding the Order's compliance relief applies exclusively to domestic manufacturers (including micro and small enterprises) certified by or having applied to the Bureau, and not to importers. The Court upheld a departmental clarification reiterating the manufacturer-centric scope, found no jurisdictional defect, breach of natural justice, or apparent error in the impugned adjudicatory order, and declined to exercise Article 226 discretion given availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioner may challenge the order before the CESTAT; time spent in the writ will be credited; petition dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4788
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
