<?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>Airport security screening outside customs areas remains valid where Customs officers subsequently conduct seizure using prescribed safeguards.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102021</link>
    <description>CISF airport security screening and preventive checks may extend to city-side airport areas during heightened security alerts. The article notes that interception of a passenger after customs clearance, based on suspicion concerning commercial quantities of goods, was treated as a security-profiling measure rather than an exercise of customs-enforcement power. It further states that CISF secured the goods and handed them to police and Customs, while competent Customs officers conducted the seizure through a panchanama with independent witnesses and stated search safeguards. On this account, the subsequent customs seizure was not considered vitiated by the prior CISF interception, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:14 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=913273" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Airport security screening outside customs areas remains valid where Customs officers subsequently conduct seizure using prescribed safeguards.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102021</link>
      <description>CISF airport security screening and preventive checks may extend to city-side airport areas during heightened security alerts. The article notes that interception of a passenger after customs clearance, based on suspicion concerning commercial quantities of goods, was treated as a security-profiling measure rather than an exercise of customs-enforcement power. It further states that CISF secured the goods and handed them to police and Customs, while competent Customs officers conducted the seizure through a panchanama with independent witnesses and stated search safeguards. On this account, the subsequent customs seizure was not considered vitiated by the prior CISF interception, and the writ petition was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:14 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=102021</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>