https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399100 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, who challenged the freezing of their bank account without notice under the Customs Act. The court found that the attachment was unauthorized as it exceeded the statutory period for provisional attachments and did not adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in Section 110 of the Customs Act. The communication freezing the account was set aside and quashed, allowing the petitioner to operate the bank account. The judgment emphasized the necessity of written orders for attachment, approval from Customs authorities, and adherence to specific timelines for such actions. en-us Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Feb 2021 10:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399100 The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, who challenged the freezing of their bank account without notice under the Customs Act. The court found that the attachment was unauthorized as it exceeded the statutory period for provisional attachments and did not adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in Section 110 of the Customs Act. The communication freezing the account was set aside and quashed, allowing the petitioner to operate the bank account. The judgment emphasized the necessity of written orders for attachment, approval from Customs authorities, and adherence to specific timelines for such actions. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 25 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399100