https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339992 The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of detaining the drone due to non-compliance with Ext.P3 notification requirements. It emphasized the importance of obtaining prior permissions for importing restricted items and upheld the statutory framework governing such imports. The court ruled that the petitioner's failure to secure necessary permissions justified the detention of the drone, categorizing it as "prohibited goods" under the Customs Act. en-us Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Nov 2017 16:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339992 The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the legality of detaining the drone due to non-compliance with Ext.P3 notification requirements. It emphasized the importance of obtaining prior permissions for importing restricted items and upheld the statutory framework governing such imports. The court ruled that the petitioner's failure to secure necessary permissions justified the detention of the drone, categorizing it as "prohibited goods" under the Customs Act. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339992