Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
Restoration of confiscated property during trial under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the PMLA is controlled by Rule 3A of the 2016 Rules, as amended, which permits consideration only after framing of charge under Section 4. Where charges have not been framed, an application for restoration is premature. The pendency of an appeal against the adjudication order before the statutory appellate forum also bars a course that would trench upon or render the appellate remedy infructuous. Applying these principles, the restoration order was held contrary to the statutory scheme and was set aside.
Restoration of confiscated property during trial under the second proviso to Section 8(8) of the PMLA is controlled by Rule 3A of the 2016 Rules, as amended, which permits consideration only after framing of charge under Section 4. Where charges have not been framed, an application for restoration is premature. The pendency of an appeal against the adjudication order before the statutory appellate forum also bars a course that would trench upon or render the appellate remedy infructuous. Applying these principles, the restoration order was held contrary to the statutory scheme and was set aside.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.