https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374822 The article concerns a challenge to a customs seizure memo on the ground that the Inspector, SIIB lacked authority to order seizure under the IPR imported goods enforcement regime, where authorisation was said to lie only with the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. It also notes the contention that the seizure reflected a predetermined approach and no independent application of mind because it followed superior authority directions. Pending counter affidavit and rejoinder, notice was issued and interim protection granted. The operation of the seizure memo was stayed, and the seized goods were directed to be released on furnishing a bond for their value and a bank guarantee of 25% of that amount. en-us Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Feb 2019 08:16:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374822 The article concerns a challenge to a customs seizure memo on the ground that the Inspector, SIIB lacked authority to order seizure under the IPR imported goods enforcement regime, where authorisation was said to lie only with the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. It also notes the contention that the seizure reflected a predetermined approach and no independent application of mind because it followed superior authority directions. Pending counter affidavit and rejoinder, notice was issued and interim protection granted. The operation of the seizure memo was stayed, and the seized goods were directed to be released on furnishing a bond for their value and a bank guarantee of 25% of that amount. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 17 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=374822