Anticipatory bail in a money-laundering investigation was refused after the High Court found the petitioner ineligible for pre-arrest bail on both merits and medical grounds. The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition seeking anticipatory bail and disposed of pending applications. The text identifies the twin conditions for bail as part of the subject matter but provides no further reasoning on their application.

Freezing of property under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act was examined for compliance with the statutory requirements governing reasons to believe, retention, and confirmation by the Adjudicating Authority. The material records that the mandatory requirements for freezing and retention under the relevant provisions were complied with before the Adjudicating Authority passed its confirmation order. The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court's orders and dismissed the special leave petitions, leaving the freezing orders and their confirmation undisturbed.

Company-liability provisions under FEMA attach responsibility to a person in charge of business conduct or whose neglect contributes to the company's contravention. Authority to execute export-related banking and transaction documents established responsibility for non-realisation and repatriation of export proceeds; neglect was attributable despite no proven consent, connivance or mens rea. Liability was therefore retained. The monetary penalty was limited to the amount already deposited, modifying the adjudication order while preserving the finding of contravention.

Liquidator appointment under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code must give due effect to a unanimous Committee of Creditors recommendation, subject to the statutory grounds for replacement and verification of the proposed professional's subsisting Authorisation for Assignment. A general IBBI communication cannot be used to exclude a recommended insolvency professional where it falls outside Section 34(4) or does not factually apply. An unresolved eligibility objection cannot independently support appointment of another liquidator, but the Adjudicating Authority must verify regulatory authorisation before charge is assumed. Routine liquidation steps already taken may be preserved, with appropriate costs and fees for work genuinely performed.

Unadjudicated interest and damages under provident fund law that remain undetermined and non-final when the corporate insolvency resolution process begins are contingent, uncrystallized liabilities. Although provident fund dues may be excluded from the liquidation estate, a resolution plan need not include such uncrystallized interest and damages. The Committee of Creditors may make a lump-sum provision in its commercial wisdom, but omission does not itself breach the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Resolution applicants are entitled to certainty over assumed liabilities, and a Committee-approved plan may be rejected only on the limited statutory grounds governing plan approval.

An unadjudicated assertion in pleadings before the Supreme Court establishes only that the assertion was made; it neither declares law under Article 141 nor determines an entity's applicable statutory regime. That regime must be assessed under the governing framework based on the entity's objects, activities, operational area and relevant circumstances. Mandamus ordinarily requires a distinct prior demand for performance of a mandatory duty and a subsequent refusal or neglect within a reasonable time. Without evidence of such demand and refusal, and where jurisdiction over the entity is disputed, mandamus is not warranted.

India-UAE CEPA preferential customs duty treatment may not be denied merely because original Certificates of Origin used a tentative or non-prescribed format, named a third-party consignee, or contained an endorsement that did not alter origin, value, or goods description. Certificates issued before notification of the Origin Rules cannot be rejected for failing to meet a later-prescribed format, and the applicable duty rate is determined when Bills of Entry are presented. The Origin Rules permit replacement of erroneous certificates and retrospective issuance within the stipulated period. Where a valid revised certificate is produced in time and origin authenticity is undisputed, procedural discrepancies do not defeat preferential treatment.

Cross-objections under the Customs Act may challenge any adverse part of an order once an appeal is filed, not merely the appellant's grounds. Declared import values cannot be rejected without evidence of a statutory related-party relationship, price influence, additional consideration, or excess remittance; proforma invoices, relationships among persons behind separate entities, and consultancy or investment payments are insufficient. Post-import redetermination of retail sale price lacked statutory machinery for the relevant period, and undisclosed invoices prejudiced the importer's defence. A transdermal foot patch intended for therapeutic relief and improved circulation is classifiable as a medicament, not a skin-care preparation. Consequential undervaluation, confiscation and penalty findings lack foundation.

Amounts paid when filing a bill of entry may remain refundable deposits where imported goods are neither cleared for home consumption nor finally assessed, demanded, or appropriated as customs duty. Where goods are destroyed for failure to meet quarantine requirements before clearance, the taxable event for import duty does not arise. Redemption fine and penalties for the underlying statutory contravention do not change the character of the pre-clearance payment. The analysis therefore treats the payment as a refundable deposit rather than customs duty.

Differential export duty on iron ore fines must be determined by reference to the iron content, condition and weight of the goods at the time of export, including moisture. Departmental test reports obtained months after sampling and tested on a dry basis cannot reliably establish the iron content of exported goods at the relevant time. Where the exporter's reports showed iron content below the concessional-duty threshold, the delayed reports could not support a differential-duty demand. A prior decision on the identical issue was treated as governing the matter, rendering the demand unsustainable.

Punitive action against an authorised courier for concealed contraband requires evidence of knowledge, wilful contravention, or failure to exercise due diligence. The inquiry found no evidence linking the courier to the concealed gold or showing knowledge of it; the concealment was detectable only through Customs X-ray examination, facilities unavailable to the courier when receiving the cargo. As the courier acted bona fide and exercised due diligence, and the proposed Customs Act penalties were dropped, punitive measures under Regulation 14 were not justified.

Refund of Special Additional Duty under the exemption framework requires fulfilment of conditions including subsequent sale of imported goods and payment of sales tax or VAT. Section 27 of the Customs Act prescribes a one-year period for refunds of duty or interest but does not cover Special Additional Duty. A notification issued under Section 25(1) cannot impose, without statutory amendment, a limitation running from payment of Special Additional Duty where the statute provides none, because that restriction affects the substantive refund right. The notification-based one-year limitation is therefore inapplicable, and the refund claim remains sustainable.

An adverse circular withdrawing the additional customs duty exemption for imported ore concentrates operates only prospectively, even if described as clarificatory. The earlier circular treated concentrates as "ore" and supported nil additional duty assessments. A later circular distinguishing ores from concentrates by reference to a Central Excise tariff manufacturing concept could not create retrospective customs liability for imports made before it was issued. The separate statutory fields of customs and central excise further preclude retrospective recovery based on that clarification. Accordingly, additional customs duty cannot be recovered for the period preceding the adverse circular.

Classification of exported scaffolding items under the specific tariff headings for nuts, bolts, washers, clamps and hand tools had been settled by binding decisions on materially identical notices. Those decisions recognised finality of accepted assessments, limitation on drawback recovery, and the need for Revenue authorities to follow binding precedent. The Gujarat HC material states that a further notice alleging misclassification could not reopen that settled classification, and that consequentially withheld drawback and the export promotional copy were to be released.

Section 127C(3)-(5) of the Customs Act requires settlement authorities to obtain the jurisdictional Commissioner's report and give the applicant an effective hearing before determining liability. An adverse enhancement based on a report not disclosed to the applicant breaches that hearing requirement and the principles of natural justice. Connected settlement applications arising from the same seized goods require legally consistent consideration. Inconsistent treatment of interconnected applications, particularly where the principal proceeding is set aside, can render related settlement orders unsustainable.

Withdrawal of a summons issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to an advocate for a legal opinion rendered the related challenge infructuous. The text notes that summoning an advocate who has provided a legal opinion should ordinarily be confined to rare and exceptional circumstances, requiring authorities to exercise due care and caution. The writ petition and pending applications were disposed of after the summons was withdrawn.

A pending application for provisional release of a seized vessel, oil and cash under the Customs Act must be decided after granting a personal hearing consistent with principles of natural justice. The text records that no view was expressed on the applicant's substantive entitlement to provisional release. The concerned respondent was directed to hear the applicant and issue a reasoned order on the provisional-release application within six weeks.

Departmental appeals involving duty below the CBIC litigation-policy threshold are not to be filed before CESTAT and, if already filed, are to be withdrawn. The text states that Revenue appeals falling below that threshold were dismissed without examination of merits under the litigation policy, while any question of law was kept open. The monetary-limit policy therefore restricts departmental litigation without determining the underlying substantive dispute.

Reassessment jurisdiction requires the Assessing Officer to record reasons before issuing notice, and the statutory approval must reflect independent application of mind. Undated recorded reasons and an undated sanction do not establish that reasons preceded issuance of the reassessment notice. Approval recorded merely as "yes" or "approved" on a pre-typed proforma, without discernible consideration of the reasons or supporting material, is mechanical and fails the jurisdictional safeguard. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings and resulting assessment order were invalid and quashed.

Closing work-in-progress was reconciled by treating the preceding year's audited closing balance as the relevant year's opening balance. The apparent difference arose because unaudited Tally-generated balance-sheet figures added opening work-in-progress to closing work-in-progress, rather than excluding it. Audited accounts reflected the correct closing work-in-progress and removed any discrepancy in stock-in-trade. On that reconciliation, the addition for an alleged difference in work-in-progress was unsustainable and required deletion.