Jewellery carried in excess of the quantity permissible under the Indian Customs Baggage Rules, 2026, was detained despite the petitioners' claim that it was brought for a marriage and not for smuggling or sale. The petitioners may seek return of the seized jewellery from the customs authority, which must adjudicate the applications. An admitted breach of the baggage rules may be resolved through imposition of a minor penalty with the petitioners' consent.

RBI remittances under the special rupee export arrangement could not be treated as unrelated to exports without evidence that RBI had rejected or reversed them; Customs was required to have any doubts examined by RBI. Recovery of duty drawback on that premise was therefore unsustainable. Duty drawback depends on the nature of exported goods, while recovery for non-realisation is governed by the Drawback Rules. Export is complete when goods leave India's territorial waters and title passes to the buyer, so alleged diversion or landing at intermediary ports does not defeat drawback entitlement. Goods already exported were outside confiscation provisions, rendering consequential penalties unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside and appeals allowed with consequential relief.

Section 110(2) requires return of seized goods where no notice is issued within the prescribed period, unless the period is timely extended under its first proviso. Provisional release does not suspend this consequence, particularly where the provisional-release order excludes the goods concerned. Continued detention of imported machines and spare parts after one year without notice was therefore illegal, and release was directed subject to execution of a bond equal to their value.

Section 108 statements may be relied on in customs penalty adjudication only after the maker is examined, admissibility is determined in the interests of justice, and the affected person receives an opportunity for cross-examination under Section 138B. Non-compliance renders such statements inadmissible and cannot sustain a penalty founded solely on them. Uncertified call-detail records and WhatsApp chats, particularly where no relevant communications are shown, do not reliably establish collusion. Abetment of gold smuggling requires a nexus to the seized goods or prohibited dealings; a customs employee's omission or negligence alone is insufficient. The penalty was set aside.

Penal liability of a Customs Broker for abetment of attempted Red Sanders export requires evidence of a positive act, prior knowledge, active collusion, or assistance; failure alone to verify an IEC holder does not establish abetment. Where the Broker obtained and verified KYC and IEC documents, co-operated with the investigation, and no evidence linked it to the attempted smuggling, the Tribunal found no basis for an abetment penalty. The penalty was set aside, and the Revenue's attempt to impose an additional penalty was rejected.

Tariff classification of formulated natural astaxanthin preparations depends under GRI 1 on the heading terms and relevant Chapter Notes. Heading 3203 applies to vegetable- or animal-origin products used mainly as colouring substances, including preparations for colouring. Astaxanthin complexes formulated for dietary supplements, foods and beverages, with standardisation, stabilisation, emulsification, micro-encapsulation and dispersibility, have nutritional and functional character where colour is incidental. These preparations fall under residual Tariff Item 2106 90 99 as food preparations rather than under Tariff Item 3203 00 20 as vegetable-origin colouring matter; applicable customs duty follows that classification.

Consent terms filed jointly in oppression and mismanagement proceedings were incorporated into the appellate disposition, making the settlement binding on the parties' inter se rights, liabilities and conduct. The appeal challenging findings that amendments to the articles of association and a rights issue were oppressive was allowed by consent, and those portions of the impugned order were quashed. No independent adjudication of the challenged merits occurred.

One-time settlement by a personal guarantor with the sole financial creditor does not remove a corporate debtor from liquidation or alter the process except through statutory routes. An asset transfer approved after failed auctions may remain undisturbed where the consideration exceeds the reserve price and highest bid, despite procedural non-compliance, because it advances value maximisation. A forfeited earnest money deposit remains part of the liquidation estate and must be restored once the creditor's claim is fully settled. Settlement does not confer financial creditor status on a personal guarantor without assignment or substitution of debt; the admitted operational creditor receives distribution under the statutory waterfall before any residual promoter entitlement. Liquidator remuneration and expenses remain payable from the estate.

Prior Committee of Creditors approval of eligibility criteria is required before publication of Form G; Regulation 36A's publication timeline does not displace that requirement. On expiry of the CIRP without receipt of a resolution plan, section 33(1)(a) mandates liquidation, and a pending application alleging fraudulent or malicious initiation does not automatically halt that consequence. Going-concern status requires ongoing business operations, personnel and revenue generation, rather than residual assets alone. A suspended board has no unconditional right to impleadment in liquidation proceedings governed by objective statutory conditions. Further resolution efforts remain within the CoC's commercial judgment, which appellate review cannot replace.

Under FEMA, a charitable trust is an artificial juridical person within the inclusive definition of "person"; funds received from non-resident trustees and recorded as borrowings remain subject to FEMA regardless of charitable purpose. Omission of section 6(3) did not invalidate proceedings commenced before the omission took effect. Non-repatriable rupee loans from non-resident Indians had to be repaid within three years, including through credit to NRO or NRSR accounts. Contravention is a civil breach attracting penalty without proof of mens rea under section 13(1). The Tribunal upheld the breach but reduced the penalty on appeal.

Documents relied upon in a respondent's complaint and relevant to whether property attachment should continue during the complaint's pendency must be taken on record in the related appeals. The refusal to admit those documents was set aside, and documents already filed were treated as part of the record. Costs imposed for delayed applications to file documents remained payable because the appellants had the documents in their knowledge and possession but sought to place them on record only when the appeals were listed for final hearing.

Retention of seized jewellery under PMLA was sustained because interlinked accounts, fund movements and jewellery payments supplied a prima facie nexus with proceeds of crime. The inquiry may cover property held by a person not accused of the scheduled offence where the property is connected with, or requires examination regarding, such proceeds. Recovery from a joint family residence and lack of transaction-wise tracing for individual items did not negate the nexus. Defective initial service of notice did not invalidate adjudication because participation and opportunity to defend caused no identified prejudice.

Excise liability for modifications to fully built motor vehicles depends on whether refining or remaking amounts to manufacture and, where a Chapter Note is invoked, whether a body was built on the chassis as received. These foundational questions require fresh determination before excisability and chassis-based exemption can be resolved. Extended limitation requires a positive, deliberate suppression or misstatement intended to evade duty; registration, returns, departmental scrutiny and a bona fide exemption belief do not establish that standard merely because the departmental view later changes. Any duty determined is confined to the normal limitation period. Penalties for the manufacturer and its Executive Director require the same fraud or intentional-evasion conditions and therefore do not arise absent such conduct.

Oral agreements between companies remain governed by general contract law where no statutory provision requires corporate contracts to be written. The repealed requirement for written corporate contracts was neither saved nor re-enacted under the Companies Act, 2013, and the provision governing signature authority for company documents does not prohibit oral agreements. A pleaded assertion that a company representative was authorised to enter an agreement requires evidentiary adjudication; a plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold merely for lack of a written authority letter.

The Schedule to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which listed enactments repealed by that Act, was itself repealed by section 2 and the Schedule to the Repealing Act, 1938. It consequently ceased to operate as the statutory list of repealed Indian enactments in the statutory framework of Indian law.

Improper admission or rejection of evidence does not, by itself, justify a new trial or reversal. The deciding court must determine whether independent evidence sufficiently supports the decision or whether the excluded evidence, if received, would not have altered it. Evidentiary error that is non-prejudicial to the decision does not require a new trial or reversal.

Jury and assessor questioning in trials is permitted only through, or with leave of, the judge. Questions may be addressed to witnesses only where they are of the kind the judge could himself ask and are considered proper by the judge. The mechanism preserves judicial control over the examination of witnesses while allowing juries or assessors to seek clarification relevant to the evidence.

Judicial power to discover or obtain proper proof permits the Judge to question witnesses or parties on relevant or irrelevant facts and order production of documents or things. Parties cannot object to such questioning or orders, and cross-examination on answers so obtained requires the Court's permission. Judgment must be based on legally relevant and duly proved facts, while witness protections, restrictions on improper questions, and primary-evidence requirements remain preserved.

Refusal to produce a document after receiving notice to produce prevents the refusing party from subsequently relying on that document as evidence. Later evidentiary use is permissible only with the other party's consent or by order of the Court. Where production is refused and secondary evidence is given, the original cannot later be tendered to contradict that evidence or establish that the agreement was unstamped.

Where a party calls for a document after giving notice to the other party to produce it, and then inspects the document after production, that party is bound to tender it as evidence if the producing party so requires. The obligation depends upon the document being produced pursuant to notice and inspected by the party that called for it.