https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390798 The court held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) lacked jurisdiction to draw samples post-clearance under Section 144 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that sampling must occur before goods are cleared. The court found the seizure of imported goods and documents post-clearance to be unlawful, directing their immediate release to the petitioners. It clarified that no fresh samples can be drawn once goods are assessed and cleared. The court ruled that the authorities' actions, including seizing goods post-assessment, were without jurisdiction and quashed the seizure, ordering compliance within a specified time to avoid contempt proceedings. en-us Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Nov 2020 12:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390798 The court held that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) lacked jurisdiction to draw samples post-clearance under Section 144 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that sampling must occur before goods are cleared. The court found the seizure of imported goods and documents post-clearance to be unlawful, directing their immediate release to the petitioners. It clarified that no fresh samples can be drawn once goods are assessed and cleared. The court ruled that the authorities' actions, including seizing goods post-assessment, were without jurisdiction and quashed the seizure, ordering compliance within a specified time to avoid contempt proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 07 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390798