https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202513 Where seized goods were returned within the initial six-month period on furnishing bank guarantees, no breach of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act was found because the statutory consequence of non-issue of notice did not arise. The Court also declined to interfere with the customs authority's discretion regarding possible penalty and confiscation under the Act, holding that the quantum of penalty lay within the authority's domain. In the absence of any legal infirmity, no reduction of the bank guarantees was ordered. The Court further declined to treat the proceedings as unduly delayed, while directing that notice be issued and the adjudication completed expeditiously. en-us Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 30 Mar 2011 15:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202513 Where seized goods were returned within the initial six-month period on furnishing bank guarantees, no breach of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act was found because the statutory consequence of non-issue of notice did not arise. The Court also declined to interfere with the customs authority's discretion regarding possible penalty and confiscation under the Act, holding that the quantum of penalty lay within the authority's domain. In the absence of any legal infirmity, no reduction of the bank guarantees was ordered. The Court further declined to treat the proceedings as unduly delayed, while directing that notice be issued and the adjudication completed expeditiously. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 30 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=202513