Prohibited importation of cosmetics without prior regulatory registration attracts seizure and confiscation; warehousing or re export claims do not cu...
Provisional release on security permitted where cash deposit plus bond secures differential duty; classification and treaty benefits referred for deci...
Customs Valuation Rule Sequence must be followed; single-comparator re-determination and penalties set aside without comparability or proof of mis-dec...
Separately Identifiable Services: transportation found to be the essential character, so Cargo Handling classification and extended limitation rejecte...
This article examines challenge to quashing of a complaint under...
Limitation period commencement and procedural inquiry rules: identity-based limitation upheld; complaints by authorised public servants need not attract mandatory inquiry.
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
This article examines challenge to quashing of a complaint under drug laws, focusing on limitation, procedural inquiry under Section 202 vis-a -vis Section 200 proviso for complaints by public servants, cognizance by an authorised inspector, and vicarious liability of company officers. It concludes the limitation period began when the offender's identity was established by the inspector, so the complaint was timely; a magistrate need not mandatorily postpone process under Section 202 where an authorised public servant lodged the complaint; and factual questions whether directors were 'in charge' for vicarious liability are not amenable to determination at the quashing stage and must await trial.
This article examines challenge to quashing of a complaint under drug laws, focusing on limitation, procedural inquiry under Section 202 vis-a -vis Section 200 proviso for complaints by public servants, cognizance by an authorised inspector, and vicarious liability of company officers. It concludes the limitation period began when the offender's identity was established by the inspector, so the complaint was timely; a magistrate need not mandatorily postpone process under Section 202 where an authorised public servant lodged the complaint; and factual questions whether directors were 'in charge' for vicarious liability are not amenable to determination at the quashing stage and must await trial.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4807
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
