https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411354 Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as creating an executive or administrative certification process for inventory, photographs and representative samples of seized goods, not an adjudicatory function comparable to a criminal trial. The absence of a deeming clause like Section 52A(4) of the NDPS Act, together with the distinction between judicial and executive functions under the CrPC, supported the view that such certification need not be handled by a Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate. The application was therefore not maintainable before that forum and had to be pursued before the competent authority. en-us Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Aug 2021 08:13:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411354 Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as creating an executive or administrative certification process for inventory, photographs and representative samples of seized goods, not an adjudicatory function comparable to a criminal trial. The absence of a deeming clause like Section 52A(4) of the NDPS Act, together with the distinction between judicial and executive functions under the CrPC, supported the view that such certification need not be handled by a Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate. The application was therefore not maintainable before that forum and had to be pursued before the competent authority. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411354