https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252578 The Tribunal found that the provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, to a party without evidence of ownership was improper. The initial refusal of provisional release due to fictitious importers and under-declared values was upheld, emphasizing the need to protect Revenue interests. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the Revenue's appeal and stay application. This case underscores the importance of ensuring ownership and safeguarding Revenue interests in cases involving seized goods with significant duty implications. en-us Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Oct 2014 11:59:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252578 The Tribunal found that the provisional release of seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, to a party without evidence of ownership was improper. The initial refusal of provisional release due to fictitious importers and under-declared values was upheld, emphasizing the need to protect Revenue interests. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the Revenue's appeal and stay application. This case underscores the importance of ensuring ownership and safeguarding Revenue interests in cases involving seized goods with significant duty implications. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252578