https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795582 Airport security interception and temporary detention of a passenger carrying undocumented electronic goods after customs clearance may constitute lawful preventive action rather than a customs seizure where the security agency merely secures and hands over the passenger and goods. The notes state that CISF acted on security concerns, behavioural profiling and the quantity and nature of goods, without exercising customs-enforcement powers. Customs seizure remained valid because competent Customs officers subsequently acted with prescribed search safeguards, including notice of rights, a Gazetted Officer, consent, panchanama, inventory and independent witnesses. As the initial interception was not a customs seizure, it did not vitiate the ensuing customs investigation or proceedings. en-us Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Jul 2026 08:36:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795582 Airport security interception and temporary detention of a passenger carrying undocumented electronic goods after customs clearance may constitute lawful preventive action rather than a customs seizure where the security agency merely secures and hands over the passenger and goods. The notes state that CISF acted on security concerns, behavioural profiling and the quantity and nature of goods, without exercising customs-enforcement powers. Customs seizure remained valid because competent Customs officers subsequently acted with prescribed search safeguards, including notice of rights, a Gazetted Officer, consent, panchanama, inventory and independent witnesses. As the initial interception was not a customs seizure, it did not vitiate the ensuing customs investigation or proceedings. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 09 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=795582