https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330566 The court found the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's detention of imported goods without legal authority to be unauthorized. Customs were directed to inspect and release the goods upon payment of duty, as if a No-Objection Certificate was granted. The court ordered the DRI to provide a complete panchnama copy to the petitioner. It clarified that detention is not equivalent to seizure under the Customs Act, holding the DRI responsible for warehousing charges. Emphasizing the need for coordination between DRI and Customs, the court disposed of the petition, exempting the petitioner from warehousing charges. en-us Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2016 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330566 The court found the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's detention of imported goods without legal authority to be unauthorized. Customs were directed to inspect and release the goods upon payment of duty, as if a No-Objection Certificate was granted. The court ordered the DRI to provide a complete panchnama copy to the petitioner. It clarified that detention is not equivalent to seizure under the Customs Act, holding the DRI responsible for warehousing charges. Emphasizing the need for coordination between DRI and Customs, the court disposed of the petition, exempting the petitioner from warehousing charges. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 25 Jul 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=330566