https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770782 A challenge to revaluation was held maintainable despite an earlier withdrawal, because that withdrawal did not amount to an unconditional abandonment of the grievance when the respondents later revived the dispute. On the merits, Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to authorise only certification of the inventory and description of seized goods for evidentiary purposes; it does not confer power to order fresh valuation. As the valuation issue had already been concluded in adjudication and no express statutory power existed, the revaluation direction was treated as an excess of jurisdiction and set aside, while certification proceedings were permitted to continue expeditiously. en-us Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 May 2025 08:40:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770782 A challenge to revaluation was held maintainable despite an earlier withdrawal, because that withdrawal did not amount to an unconditional abandonment of the grievance when the respondents later revived the dispute. On the merits, Section 110(1B) of the Customs Act, 1962 was held to authorise only certification of the inventory and description of seized goods for evidentiary purposes; it does not confer power to order fresh valuation. As the valuation issue had already been concluded in adjudication and no express statutory power existed, the revaluation direction was treated as an excess of jurisdiction and set aside, while certification proceedings were permitted to continue expeditiously. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 13 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=770782