https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31999 A writ petition challenging the original customs order and detention order remained maintainable because dismissal of the statutory appeal for non-condonation of delay did not attract the doctrine of merger; the original order therefore remained open to independent challenge. Customs demand and recovery were also unsustainable because the Commissioner's jurisdiction was confined to imports and exports through Bombay, while the record showed that the goods were not imported through that port and the licensing authority had shifted the port of registration to New Delhi. In the absence of particulars linking the demand to Bombay clearances, the demand rested on presumption and the consequential recovery action was illegal. en-us Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31999 A writ petition challenging the original customs order and detention order remained maintainable because dismissal of the statutory appeal for non-condonation of delay did not attract the doctrine of merger; the original order therefore remained open to independent challenge. Customs demand and recovery were also unsustainable because the Commissioner's jurisdiction was confined to imports and exports through Bombay, while the record showed that the goods were not imported through that port and the licensing authority had shifted the port of registration to New Delhi. In the absence of particulars linking the demand to Bombay clearances, the demand rested on presumption and the consequential recovery action was illegal. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31999