https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784000 The dominant issue was whether seized gold jewellery should be released where the customs authorities claimed ambiguity in the revisional order. The HC held that the revisional authority had unequivocally allowed the revision petition, leaving no scope to withhold release; continued detention would be contrary to the binding revisional decision. Consequently, the customs authorities were directed to return the seized jewellery to the petitioner, facilitate identity verification through personal/authorised appearance with virtual confirmation, and waive warehousing charges from the date of the revisional order until actual release. en-us Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Dec 2025 07:20:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784000 The dominant issue was whether seized gold jewellery should be released where the customs authorities claimed ambiguity in the revisional order. The HC held that the revisional authority had unequivocally allowed the revision petition, leaving no scope to withhold release; continued detention would be contrary to the binding revisional decision. Consequently, the customs authorities were directed to return the seized jewellery to the petitioner, facilitate identity verification through personal/authorised appearance with virtual confirmation, and waive warehousing charges from the date of the revisional order until actual release. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 18 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784000