Customs valuation and classification require comparable evidence and assessment of imported goods in their actual condition, invalidating related pena...
Terminal gate verification for transshipment containers shifts to operators, while Customs controls and discrepancy reporting requirements remain mand...
Page of 4803
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
361 to 380 of 96047 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
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 
of 4803
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
