CESTAT held that the appeal filed by A against a seizure memo issued u/s 110 of the Customs Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that seizure u/s 110 is merely an interim measure based on reasonable belief of liability to confiscation, and that appellate remedy u/s 128 lies only after adjudication of confiscation under ss. 124 and 125. As no confiscation order existed, there was no appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT. If A was aggrieved by continued seizure, the proper course was to seek provisional release u/s 110A, which was not shown to have been attempted. The proceedings were held premature and the appeal was dismissed.
CESTAT held that the appeal filed by A against a seizure memo issued u/s 110 of the Customs Act was not maintainable. The Tribunal observed that seizure u/s 110 is merely an interim measure based on reasonable belief of liability to confiscation, and that appellate remedy u/s 128 lies only after adjudication of confiscation under ss. 124 and 125. As no confiscation order existed, there was no appealable order before the Commissioner (Appeals) or CESTAT. If A was aggrieved by continued seizure, the proper course was to seek provisional release u/s 110A, which was not shown to have been attempted. The proceedings were held premature and the appeal was dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
