<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (5) TMI 168 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77007</link>
    <description>Customs authorities cannot retain imported goods indefinitely without recording the statutory basis for seizure or showing a valid reason for continued non-clearance. The text distinguishes short-term detention for assessment purposes from unlawful prolonged retention, and states that powers to verify classification, value, or confiscability must be exercised promptly and within a reasonable period. Where no seizure under Section 110 is made, Section 110A does not apply. In the stated facts, the goods were not shown to be prohibited and the duty position was not shown to justify further detention, so release was required on compliance with duty payment requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 13:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=115186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 168 - PUNJAB &amp; HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77007</link>
      <description>Customs authorities cannot retain imported goods indefinitely without recording the statutory basis for seizure or showing a valid reason for continued non-clearance. The text distinguishes short-term detention for assessment purposes from unlawful prolonged retention, and states that powers to verify classification, value, or confiscability must be exercised promptly and within a reasonable period. Where no seizure under Section 110 is made, Section 110A does not apply. In the stated facts, the goods were not shown to be prohibited and the duty position was not shown to justify further detention, so release was required on compliance with duty payment requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 14 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=77007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>