https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332156 The Court noted the lack of specific determination on the minimum distance required between hazardous cargo and general cargo in the customs area. The respondent admitted the oversight and committed to providing clarification. A Circular no. 40/2016-Customs was presented and accepted by the Court as the sought-after clarification. The Court considered the circular as laying down prescribed guidelines for safety and security. Based on this clarification, the Court disposed of the petitions and intervention application, effectively resolving the ambiguity and implementing clarified guidelines for maintaining safe distances in the customs area. en-us Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2016 11:40:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332156 The Court noted the lack of specific determination on the minimum distance required between hazardous cargo and general cargo in the customs area. The respondent admitted the oversight and committed to providing clarification. A Circular no. 40/2016-Customs was presented and accepted by the Court as the sought-after clarification. The Court considered the circular as laying down prescribed guidelines for safety and security. Based on this clarification, the Court disposed of the petitions and intervention application, effectively resolving the ambiguity and implementing clarified guidelines for maintaining safe distances in the customs area. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 29 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332156