Judicial review of settlement orders cannot reopen settled customs notices, while statutory interest remains subject to verification and quantificatio...
Customs Broker licence lending for consideration justified revocation where exporter authorisation and client verification obligations were also breac...
Fraudulent import documents suspend limitation protection, while redemption of confiscated goods requires duty and interest despite bona fide purchase...
ODR arbitration participation remains mandatory after failed conciliation, while jurisdictional and maintainability objections stay available before t...
Transparency in technical bid evaluation requires disclosed standards and recorded reasons; opaque scoring invalidated tender awards and required fres...
Automated export obligation extensions remove separate regional applications after committee approval for Advance Authorisation and EPCG authorisation...
International cargo transhipment through Indian ports continues with Customs-controlled storage, re-export safeguards, and coordinated multi-station m...
Interim release conditions imposed in writ petitions challenging confiscation orders under Section 130 were upheld because detention matters under Section 129 were not comparable. The Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130, title to the goods and conveyance vests in the Government, and the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. Accordingly, interim terms framed for detention proceedings could not be imported into confiscation cases, and the appellants were not entitled to parity with orders passed in other Section 129 matters. The refusal to modify the interim orders was found to be in accordance with law, and both writ appeals were dismissed.
Interim release conditions imposed in writ petitions challenging confiscation orders under Section 130 were upheld because detention matters under Section 129 were not comparable. The Court held that once confiscation is ordered under Section 130, title to the goods and conveyance vests in the Government, and the release mechanism under Section 129 no longer applies. Accordingly, interim terms framed for detention proceedings could not be imported into confiscation cases, and the appellants were not entitled to parity with orders passed in other Section 129 matters. The refusal to modify the interim orders was found to be in accordance with law, and both writ appeals were dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.