<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (11) TMI 166 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400411</link>
    <description>The court upheld the legitimacy of the seizure of imported goods under the Customs Act, emphasizing procedural safeguards. The classification of the goods as old rubber tires scrap or reusable tires was left for the adjudicating authority to determine. The validity of the Chartered Engineer&#039;s report was not commented on at this stage, but the petitioner&#039;s right to question it was acknowledged. The court directed testing of samples by an accredited laboratory, criticized the respondents for not cooperating, and allowed provisional release of seized goods with specific conditions. The court emphasized expediting the investigation and adjudication process without expressing any opinion on the case merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2021 10:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=627086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (11) TMI 166 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400411</link>
      <description>The court upheld the legitimacy of the seizure of imported goods under the Customs Act, emphasizing procedural safeguards. The classification of the goods as old rubber tires scrap or reusable tires was left for the adjudicating authority to determine. The validity of the Chartered Engineer&#039;s report was not commented on at this stage, but the petitioner&#039;s right to question it was acknowledged. The court directed testing of samples by an accredited laboratory, criticized the respondents for not cooperating, and allowed provisional release of seized goods with specific conditions. The court emphasized expediting the investigation and adjudication process without expressing any opinion on the case merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400411</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>