https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48062 The court held that the order dated 14th November 1986 could not be enforced under the FTDR Act, 1992, as it lacked corresponding provisions. It found that the respondents did not have jurisdiction under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act to confiscate the goods since there was no prohibition on their import. The court determined that the 1986 order did not constitute "law" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders for being without jurisdiction. The petitions were allowed with no order as to costs. en-us Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:10:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48062 The court held that the order dated 14th November 1986 could not be enforced under the FTDR Act, 1992, as it lacked corresponding provisions. It found that the respondents did not have jurisdiction under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act to confiscate the goods since there was no prohibition on their import. The court determined that the 1986 order did not constitute "law" under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, leading to the quashing of the impugned orders for being without jurisdiction. The petitions were allowed with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 12 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=48062