CKD/SKD air-conditioner components classifiable with finished units by essential character; prior advance ruling extended three years, FTA benefits po...
Scope of judicial review under Article 226: supervisory, not appellate; factual reappraisal barred, challenge dismissed; insolvency professional dutie...
Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
The core issue is whether seizure for alleged mis-classification...
Imported menthol-scented sweet supari classification dispute: seizure quashed, release for home consumption subject to duty bond; bank guarantee refused
Contents
Summary
Note
Bookmark
Share
✓ Copied successfully !
Print
Print Options
For full text, please login
Login to TaxTMI
Verification Pending
The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on
The core issue is whether seizure for alleged mis-classification was lawful given a prior binding classification by CAAR under Section 28J and FSSAI's conformity opinion; the court reasoned that CAAR's ruling classifying the imported menthol-scented sweet supari under CTH 21069030 and FSSAI test results establishing compliance negate prima facie justification for seizure, and directed release for home consumption subject to a bond for duty demanded under the show-cause notice. The court also refused respondents' insistence on release only against a bank guarantee, while preserving respondents' right to adjudicate classification in due course. - HC
The core issue is whether seizure for alleged mis-classification was lawful given a prior binding classification by CAAR under Section 28J and FSSAI's conformity opinion; the court reasoned that CAAR's ruling classifying the imported menthol-scented sweet supari under CTH 21069030 and FSSAI test results establishing compliance negate prima facie justification for seizure, and directed release for home consumption subject to a bond for duty demanded under the show-cause notice. The court also refused respondents' insistence on release only against a bank guarantee, while preserving respondents' right to adjudicate classification in due course. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4813 
Join Channel 
