Person chargeable with duty must be the importer at importation; subsequent purchasers cannot be held liable where beneficial owner rules did not appl...
HC considered whether an existing Prohibition Order and Seizure Order could continue after remand where no confiscation proposal under Section 67(2) had been issued. The court observed no de novo orders were passed post-remand and, because notices did not propose confiscation, held that continuation of prohibition or seizure could not be sustained. Consequently the impugned Prohibition and Seizure Orders were quashed and the writ petition allowed.
HC considered whether an existing Prohibition Order and Seizure Order could continue after remand where no confiscation proposal under Section 67(2) had been issued. The court observed no de novo orders were passed post-remand and, because notices did not propose confiscation, held that continuation of prohibition or seizure could not be sustained. Consequently the impugned Prohibition and Seizure Orders were quashed and the writ petition allowed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4809 
Join Channel 
