Interim relief materially affecting parties' rights requires an effective opportunity to answer the interlocutory application, a reasoned prima facie assessment, and recorded reasons. Failure to file a reply in the main proceedings or interlocutory application does not alone justify substantive ex parte relief where no effective opportunity to respond has been established. Section 424 of the Companies Act, 2013 and principles of natural justice require a meaningful hearing before granting such relief. An ex parte interim order granting substantive relief without these safeguards is vitiated.

Waiver under the proviso to Section 244(1)(b) may preserve maintainability of oppression and mismanagement proceedings where the required member support is established. For a company without share capital, consent of at least one-fifth of total members satisfies the statutory eligibility threshold; reliance on an accepted electoral list showed that 209 consents exceeded that requirement. Filing a waiver application after the company petition, as a precaution during a membership dispute, does not itself invalidate the petition. Allegations that consents were forged or uninformed require proof from the alleging party. Waiver jurisdiction addresses eligibility, not the merits of the underlying oppression and mismanagement claims.

Wi-Fi, cellular-communication and GNSS modules that cannot communicate or provide positioning independently, and require integration with a PCB, power source, antenna and host controls, are parts of communication apparatus. As goods solely or principally suitable for Heading 8517 apparatus, they are classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8517 79 90 rather than as complete apparatus or general electronic integrated circuits; the specific parts description prevails. The modules qualify for nil basic customs duty under Serial No. 5 of Notification No. 57/2017-Customs because they are embedded modules for industrial, commercial and infrastructure equipment and are outside the specified mobile-phone and wrist-wearable exclusions.

Automotive instrument-cluster LCD panels are classified as liquid crystal devices under Customs Tariff Item 9013 80 10 rather than as motor-vehicle parts. Classification follows the tariff heading terms and relevant Section and Chapter Notes. Chapter 90 Note 2(a) requires goods covered by a Chapter 90 heading to remain classified there even when used as parts of another article. The specific description of liquid crystal devices therefore prevails over intended automotive use, displacing reclassification under vehicle-parts entries and consequential differential duty, interest, and penalties.

DC-to-DC converters, which convert direct current between voltage levels, are static converters under Customs Tariff Item 8504 40. They fall within Sl. No. 375 of Schedule III to Notification No. 1/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate), dated 28 June 2017, and attract IGST at 18% when that notification governed the import assessment. A later notification harmonising the IGST rate applies prospectively and does not alter the assessment under the notification in force on the import date.

Written acceptance of a customs reassessment dispenses only with the requirement for a speaking order; it does not waive the importer's statutory right to challenge the reassessment's legality or merits. Rejection of declared transaction value requires reasonable doubt about its truth or accuracy, with the grounds communicated in writing before applying the sequential valuation rules. Acceptance letters lacking particulars of comparable contemporaneous imports, and unsubstantiated external or NIDB data without independent cogent material, cannot by themselves support rejection of transaction value or enhancement of import value.

Reasonable belief that gold is smuggled is a precondition for the reverse burden under section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962. Procurement invoices and corresponding GSTR-2A records established licit acquisition, while a town seizure, gold purity of 99.7%, and the absence of indicators of foreign origin did not support such belief. Once the claimant substantiated lawful procurement, the Revenue did not prove a smuggled origin. The gold was therefore not liable to confiscation, and its release was directed.

Special Additional Duty refund under Notification No. 102/2007-Customs requires sale of the imported goods themselves, supported by invoices and VAT payment on those goods. Sterilisation, repacking and relabelling of imported non-sterile latex examination gloves constituted deemed manufacture under the Central Excise Act, particularly where concessional central excise duty was paid on the processed goods. The retail products were therefore manufactured goods rather than imported goods sold as such. Strict construction of the exemption conditions made the refund unavailable.

Section 110(1) of the Customs Act requires a proper officer to independently form a reasonable belief, on objective material, that goods are liable to confiscation; suspicion alone, including a single marking that does not establish foreign origin, is insufficient for seizure. Purchase invoices, banking records and income-tax returns supporting acquisition and conversion of gold may discharge the claimant's burden under Section 123 where they remain undiscredited. The burden then lies on Revenue to prove foreign origin or smuggling through cogent evidence. Without such proof, confiscation of the gold and related penalties cannot be sustained.

Anti-dumping duty imposed on castings for wind-operated electricity generators covers castings in raw, finished, sub-assembled forms and when incorporated in sub-assemblies, equipment or components. The levy remains confined to the casting content and does not extend to an entire gearbox merely because it contains castings. A final Tribunal interpretation limiting duty to the castings binds customs authorities, and consistent assessments of identical imports support that limited application. Levy on the complete gearbox therefore lacks statutory authority.

Statutory amendment effective from 15 June 2026 operates prospectively unless it expressly provides otherwise. Imports covered by bills of lading dated before commencement cannot be governed by that amendment or have provisional-release consideration denied on its basis. Provisional release for such imports must be considered under the pre-existing Customs Act framework, with release subject to compliance with lawfully imposed conditions.

Duty-free import of polyester knitted fabrics under a valid Special Advance Authorization remains eligible for customs-duty exemption notwithstanding a Minimum Import Price condition. Paragraph 4.04A of the Foreign Trade Policy permits such imports for manufacture and export of apparel, while Notification No. 27/2023 provides the corresponding exemption. The later Minimum Import Price notification expressly accommodates Special Advance Authorization holders, subject to restrictions on sale of imported inputs in the Domestic Tariff Area. Accordingly, the Minimum Import Price condition alone does not disqualify the exemption; resulting confiscation, redemption fine and penalty cannot be sustained.

Concurrent factual findings on customs misdeclaration are ordinarily not disturbed in criminal revision unless perversity is demonstrated. Export certification of granite cobble stones followed by interception of red sander logs, coupled with an untraceable transport vehicle, fictitious intermediaries and no theft complaint, supported the findings. For sentencing, where prohibited goods are not covered by Section 123, the maximum imprisonment under Section 135(1)(ii) applies. Time already spent in custody and substantial delay since the occurrence may justify reducing imprisonment to time served while retaining fines and default imprisonment.

Proper-officer competence under sections 2(34), 28 and 124 of the Customs Act extends to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, SIIB, for issuing a show-cause notice. Article 226 relief is ordinarily unavailable where statutory adjudication provides an effective remedy, unless a recognised exception applies. Challenges concerning an accepted CBI closure report, exports, valuation, DEPB credit and related transactions require factual findings and evidence before the adjudicating authority. Where the jurisdictional challenge fails and factual controversies remain unresolved, the statutory adjudicatory process must be followed.

Amendment to an exemption notification effective from 15 June 2026 applies prospectively where it contains no express retrospective provision. Imported goods covered by bills of lading dated before the amendment cannot be subjected to it when considering provisional release. Requests for provisional release must therefore be assessed under the law applicable when the imports occurred, under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, with release available upon compliance with lawfully imposed conditions.

Immediate suspension of a Customs Broker's licence under Regulation 16(1) is an exceptional preventive measure requiring recorded reasons showing genuine necessity for prompt action. Pending or contemplated enquiry alone does not establish immediacy. Although "immediate" does not require instantaneous action, the licensing authority must act with reasonable promptness once sufficient material is available. Circular No. 9/2010-Customs provides relevant timelines, from which departures require properly explained exceptional circumstances. Substantial unexplained delays in investigation, receipt of offence reports, or suspension action negate the statutory requirement of immediacy, rendering suspension and continuation orders legally unsustainable.

Section 110A permits provisional release of seized goods or vessels subject to security and conditions, but that discretion must be exercised reasonably on relevant, case-specific material while protecting revenue. Writ jurisdiction may remain available despite the appellate remedy under Section 128 where a provisional-release condition is ex facie excessive or unreasonable. Relevant factors in fixing security include comparable security required for connected property, disputed valuation material, and voluntary payments already made. A disproportionate bank-guarantee requirement was recalibrated while the remaining provisional-release conditions continued to apply.

Functional comparability under the Transactional Net Margin Method requires broadly similar functions, assets and risks despite tolerance for routine differences in costs, turnover and commercial conditions. Software-product, licensing, specialised-design or proprietary-intellectual-property businesses without reliable segmental data should not be compared at entity level with routine software-support and IT-enabled service providers. A different accounting year does not preclude comparability where audited quarterly data permits financial-year recomputation. Draft and final assessments following a Transfer Pricing Officer reference must comply with the extended limitation period and the prescribed Dispute Resolution Panel process. Foreign tax credit includes income exempt under section 10AA, subject to the treaty ceiling for Indian tax attributable to source-State taxable income.

Royalty payable by non-resident customers is chargeable in India only where the licensed right, property or information is used in the payer's Indian business or to earn income from an identifiable Indian source. A multi-territorial licence that includes India, without customer-specific evidence of that nexus, does not satisfy the domestic source condition; indirect commercial use does not remove it. Treaty analysis distinguishes effective connection with the recipient's permanent establishment from royalty situs based on the payer's residence or permanent establishment. Where declarations show no Indian permanent establishment or fixed base and no contrary material exists, treaty situs conditions remain unmet. Subject to verification, the licensing receipts are not taxable in India.

Documented share-sale transactions supported by allotment records, demat and bank statements, contract notes, and broker ledgers satisfy the initial burden to establish genuineness for unexplained cash-credit purposes unless cogent material links the taxpayer to penny-stock manipulation or an accommodation-entry scheme. General investigation material, without a taxpayer-specific nexus, cash trail, or identifying operator statement, cannot displace uncontroverted evidence; the human-probabilities test does not remove that requirement. An estimated unexplained-expenditure addition for alleged commission cannot stand where it rests solely on an unproved allegation that the underlying transaction was bogus.