https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43225 The Court set aside the confiscation order issued by the respondent under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was deemed unlawful due to lack of prior notice to the petitioner, the owner of the goods. Emphasizing the necessity of providing clear grounds for confiscation and conducting a proper hearing, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Ownership rights were prioritized over the definition of "importer," leading to the directive for a hearing to establish ownership and return the goods to the petitioner for reshipment to Singapore, with costs to be borne by the Customs Authorities. en-us Wed, 13 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:11:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43225 The Court set aside the confiscation order issued by the respondent under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as it was deemed unlawful due to lack of prior notice to the petitioner, the owner of the goods. Emphasizing the necessity of providing clear grounds for confiscation and conducting a proper hearing, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. Ownership rights were prioritized over the definition of "importer," leading to the directive for a hearing to establish ownership and return the goods to the petitioner for reshipment to Singapore, with costs to be borne by the Customs Authorities. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 13 Mar 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43225