Courier transshipment of imported goods via named carrier to air cargo stations renewed until 30.01.2026; exemption conditional, strict controls apply...
Insurer's investment gains and investment write-downs face Section 263 revision; enquiry upheld, Rule 5(b)(ii) lapse sustained, late corrigendum quash...
The central issue was whether preventive seizure under Section 110(1) was jurisdictionally valid and supported by a "reason to believe." The court held that an officer's prima facie satisfaction based on contemporaneous material (interception near the Indo-Bangladesh border, route deviation and other circumstances) suffices; courts will not dissect the reasons so long as reasonable belief is shown, hence preventive powers under Section 110 extend to inland areas proximate to borders and do not amount to a roving enquiry - outcome: seizure and related orders upheld and appeal dismissed; domestic-trade claim held rebuttable under Section 124. - HC
The central issue was whether preventive seizure under Section 110(1) was jurisdictionally valid and supported by a "reason to believe." The court held that an officer's prima facie satisfaction based on contemporaneous material (interception near the Indo-Bangladesh border, route deviation and other circumstances) suffices; courts will not dissect the reasons so long as reasonable belief is shown, hence preventive powers under Section 110 extend to inland areas proximate to borders and do not amount to a roving enquiry - outcome: seizure and related orders upheld and appeal dismissed; domestic-trade claim held rebuttable under Section 124. - HC
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.