https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366462 The court declined to grant an interim order for the release of goods in a case involving the unauthorized detention of goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. There was a dispute over the date of seizure, with the petitioner claiming one date and the respondent another. The court stressed the importance of obtaining affidavits from both parties to resolve the factual discrepancies before making a decision. Additionally, the court directed the petitioner to include the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) as a necessary party in the proceedings. en-us Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Sep 2018 08:35:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366462 The court declined to grant an interim order for the release of goods in a case involving the unauthorized detention of goods under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. There was a dispute over the date of seizure, with the petitioner claiming one date and the respondent another. The court stressed the importance of obtaining affidavits from both parties to resolve the factual discrepancies before making a decision. Additionally, the court directed the petitioner to include the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) as a necessary party in the proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 19 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366462