https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335878 The court ordered the unconditional release of the gold kara to the petitioner due to the absence of a show cause notice for nearly two years, emphasizing the distinction between detention and seizure of goods. The judgment relied on the interpretation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and referenced legal precedent to support the release of the ancestral jewelry. The respondents' argument that the gold kara was detained for appraisal and clearance, not seized, was dismissed, and the court directed the release within two weeks, allowing for lawful actions by the respondents thereafter. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 15:49:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335878 The court ordered the unconditional release of the gold kara to the petitioner due to the absence of a show cause notice for nearly two years, emphasizing the distinction between detention and seizure of goods. The judgment relied on the interpretation of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and referenced legal precedent to support the release of the ancestral jewelry. The respondents' argument that the gold kara was detained for appraisal and clearance, not seized, was dismissed, and the court directed the release within two weeks, allowing for lawful actions by the respondents thereafter. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335878