<?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>2025 (7) TMI 1653 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775585</link>
    <description>Used gold jewellery worn by a passenger was treated as personal effects under the Baggage Rules, so Customs could not detain the gold chains on that basis. Continued detention was also impermissible because no show cause notice was issued within the statutory period under Section 110 of the Customs Act, including the permissible extension period. The chains were directed to be released for re-export, subject to verification and payment of storage or warehousing charges.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 Jul 2025 08:27:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (7) TMI 1653 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775585</link>
      <description>Used gold jewellery worn by a passenger was treated as personal effects under the Baggage Rules, so Customs could not detain the gold chains on that basis. Continued detention was also impermissible because no show cause notice was issued within the statutory period under Section 110 of the Customs Act, including the permissible extension period. The chains were directed to be released for re-export, subject to verification and payment of storage or warehousing charges.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775585</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>