https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207767 The court held that the Development Commissioner exceeded his authority in appointing a custodian under Section 45 of the Customs Act, ruling that only the Commissioner of Customs had such power. The termination of the petitioner's custodianship was deemed to violate principles of natural justice due to lack of procedural fairness. It was clarified that SEZs are within customs territory for certain purposes, including the appointment of custodians by the Commissioner of Customs. The court rejected arguments of delay and acquiescence, staying the impugned order pending final disposal of the petition. en-us Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Oct 2011 11:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207767 The court held that the Development Commissioner exceeded his authority in appointing a custodian under Section 45 of the Customs Act, ruling that only the Commissioner of Customs had such power. The termination of the petitioner's custodianship was deemed to violate principles of natural justice due to lack of procedural fairness. It was clarified that SEZs are within customs territory for certain purposes, including the appointment of custodians by the Commissioner of Customs. The court rejected arguments of delay and acquiescence, staying the impugned order pending final disposal of the petition. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207767