https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362619 The Court directed the respondents to file affidavits to substantiate the date of seizure of goods, considering the factual dispute. Referring to precedents, the Court refrained from granting an interim release order pending clarification on the commencement date of the six-month period. The petitioner's argument regarding the definition of importer was acknowledged, but concerns were raised about mis-description and revenue fraud. Compliance issues with warehousing goods were discussed, with the petitioner expressing apprehension about compliance due to potential custody concerns. The Court scheduled the petition for a hearing, added the DRI as a party respondent, and outlined service requirements for the amended cause title. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Jun 2018 07:16:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362619 The Court directed the respondents to file affidavits to substantiate the date of seizure of goods, considering the factual dispute. Referring to precedents, the Court refrained from granting an interim release order pending clarification on the commencement date of the six-month period. The petitioner's argument regarding the definition of importer was acknowledged, but concerns were raised about mis-description and revenue fraud. Compliance issues with warehousing goods were discussed, with the petitioner expressing apprehension about compliance due to potential custody concerns. The Court scheduled the petition for a hearing, added the DRI as a party respondent, and outlined service requirements for the amended cause title. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362619