A liquidator may complete a sale process lawfully initiated before liquidation where the process is adopted during liquidation, receives relevant stakeholder approval, and no material illegality or irregularity is established. The liquidation framework permits the liquidator to take custody and control of corporate-debtor assets and sell them without prohibiting completion of an earlier valid sale process. Allegations of undervaluation, absence of fresh valuation, or irregularity require material evidence of an unlawful sale or diminution of the liquidation estate. Former employees' admitted dues remain payable according to the statutory liquidation waterfall, which protects their distribution rights without invalidating a completed sale.

Withdrawal of a CIRP admitted under Section 9 is governed by the amended Section 12A framework, which does not permit the Appellate Tribunal to close proceedings on a post-admission settlement before the Committee of Creditors is constituted. A settlement executed after CIRP commencement, even where it contemplates closure subject to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, cannot independently support closure in appeal. Authorities concerning settlements concluded before CIRP admission do not apply under the amended position. The IRP may instead seek withdrawal before the Adjudicating Authority under Section 12A.

Post-CIRP transfers of a corporate debtor's bank funds during a subsisting moratorium breach the prohibition on disposing of corporate assets unless a legally established exception applies. Payment for work performed before CIRP does not validate a transfer made after commencement, and a trust claim fails without proof of a trust relationship or identifiable trust fund. Public announcement of CIRP may establish deemed knowledge of the moratorium. The former remedy under Section 74 did not preclude enforcement through the Tribunal's jurisdiction, particularly where it was not previously raised and did not negate the post-moratorium transactions. Recovery with interest remained sustainable.

Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules preserves inherent powers but does not permit reopening a final insolvency determination merely to reassess facts and alter interest already fixed through judicial discretion. In Section 7 insolvency proceedings, contractual terms generally bind parties, yet relief must advance resolution rather than transform completed proceedings into recovery of disputed enhanced default interest. Where principal and substantial interest have been repaid, a contractual default rate of 3% per month may be disproportionate to the balance claim. Liberty to seek modification does not independently establish entitlement, and the judicially fixed 9% annual interest remains applicable.

Corporate insolvency resolution process admission requires the financial debt in default to meet the statutory threshold on the date of admission. Repayment of principal debt before that date reduced the outstanding amount below the prescribed limit. Because the financial creditors had received the payments but did not disclose them to the Adjudicating Authority, the threshold default prerequisite was absent when the insolvency application was admitted. The admission was therefore legally unsustainable and was set aside.

Section 10 CIRP applications must represent a bona fide effort at insolvency resolution and may be rejected where surrounding conduct shows a malicious attempt to obstruct creditor recovery. Missing hypothecated plant and machinery, absence of supporting fixed-asset records, lack of meaningful receivables or immovable assets, and filing after recovery measures can demonstrate abuse of the moratorium process. Financial penalties for fraudulent conduct require recorded reasons addressing the nature and magnitude of misconduct and must satisfy proportionality. A penalty lacking such justification requires recalibration to a proportionate level.

Transfer of winding-up proceedings to the National Company Law Tribunal is permissible where liquidation has not reached an irreversible stage. Admission of a winding-up petition, appointment of a liquidator, asset possession, or asset sales by secured creditors outside the winding-up process do not alone establish that corporate revival is impossible. Where assets remain under the receiver's and official liquidator's custody and liquidation steps are limited, a financial creditor holding more than half of the financial debt may pursue the time-bound rehabilitative framework under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Transfer for possible revival is therefore valid.

Declared transaction value cannot be rejected for alleged customs undervaluation without reliable evidence displacing the accepted value. Unsigned, unauthenticated parallel invoices lack statutory presumption and evidentiary value. Electronic-device printouts are inadmissible where requirements for electronic-record admissibility are not met. Uncorroborated and inconsistent statements, without banking evidence, proof of additional payment, or evidence of contemporaneous imports, do not establish undervaluation. Earlier assessments accepting the declared value had attained finality, and materially identical investigation findings did not support Revenue. Consequently, redetermination of assessable value, differential duty, interest, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were set aside.

Redemption fine and penalty for imported goods treated as e-waste were reduced after the entire consignment was re-exported and never entered domestic circulation. The e-waste classification rested solely on a Chartered Engineer's report, which was not conclusive evidence of the goods' classification. Re-export compliance and absence of home consumption supported reduced monetary consequences, with redemption fine and penalty each reduced to Rs. 50,000.

Provisional-release conditions require a reasoned adjudicatory determination that complies with natural justice. A pending re-test request must be considered because re-testing may affect classification and eventual adjudication. The applicant must receive an effective personal hearing, with an opportunity to present supporting evidence, before release conditions are imposed. Where the order neither records a hearing nor addresses the re-test request or explains the viability of its conditions, the provisional-release determination cannot be sustained and requires fresh consideration.

Section 117 of the Customs Act applies only where a contravention, abetment, or failure to comply with a statutory duty is established and no separate penalty is prescribed. A bona fide re-export request, unobjectionable goods, available no-objections, and failed transhipment caused by vessel unavailability do not establish such default; penalty must also be imposed rationally, fairly, and proportionately. The penalty was therefore removed. Detention and demurrage cannot be charged for delay attributable to Customs after adjudication, particularly where no duty, fine, or penalty remains payable. Waiver protection was required until the Let Export Order was issued and made available.

Interest on refunded redemption fine is governed by restitution principles where confiscation is set aside. Redemption fine paid for release of confiscated goods becomes a revenue deposit, not a customs duty refund; therefore, the delayed-refund mechanism under Section 27A, which runs from the refund application date, does not apply. Compensatory interest is payable for the full period during which the Department retained money not legally due. The assessee is entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of deposit of redemption fine until its actual refund.

Foreign customs declarations obtained through official investigative channels and supported by authenticated translations attract a statutory presumption of correctness unless rebutted. Objections based on copies or absent signatures, stamps, or original-language documents do not displace that presumption without contrary translation or evidence. Voluntary statements to Customs officers and discrepancies in quantity or brand can corroborate import undervaluation. Such misdeclaration permits rejection of the declared transaction value under the valuation rules, followed by sequential redetermination using values of identical goods from the same exporter. Wilful misdeclaration and undervaluation support differential-duty liability and an equal penalty under the applicable customs penalty provision.

Drawback recovery, including interest, requires evidence that the sanctioned amount was actually credited to the relevant IEC holder's bank account; where no shipping bill used that IEC, recovery cannot be sustained. Penalties for export-related confiscation require an act or omission rendering goods liable to confiscation while they remain export goods; garments already removed from India cannot be treated as confiscable export goods for that purpose. Penalties for false declarations also require proof that the person knowingly or intentionally made, signed, used, or caused use of a materially false customs document. In the absence of such evidence, the drawback recovery and penalties fail.

Customs valuation may be redetermined after rejection of the declared transaction value under Rule 12 where reliable contemporaneous comparable-import data creates reasonable doubt. Rule 5 permits reliance on imports at the same commercial level, quantity and country of origin; the lowest reliable comparable value may be adopted where no material difference in goods or specifications is established. A prior self-assessed import that is not contemporaneous does not provide a valid comparator. Separately, a remanded Bill of Entry assessment requires a speaking order and personal hearing under Section 17(5); failure to issue that order calls for implementation of the remand direction rather than quashing the assessment.

Natural rubber latex toy balloons fall under Customs Tariff Heading 9503 where their specific functional coverage as toys is supported by the HSN Explanatory Notes. Under the General Rules for Interpretation, a specific heading and applicable notes prevail over a general, material-based residual entry such as Heading 4016; Heading 9505 for festive or carnival articles does not cover latex toy balloons. Notification No. 02/2021-Customs also clarifies this classification. Altering shipping-document classifications, seeking to avoid BIS requirements, and incorrectly claiming customs-duty exemption may establish mala fide intent, supporting differential-duty recovery and penalties for wilful misclassification.

Post-export amendment of shipping bills under Section 149 of the Customs Act is permissible where contemporaneous documentary evidence supports the amendment under the law applicable at export. A later-introduced limitation period cannot apply retrospectively, and repeated "NO" declarations, delay, or potential fiscal benefits do not create an absolute bar, although they may affect discretion. Amendment does not itself grant MEIS benefit, which requires independent determination by the competent authority. Departmental customs appeals below the prescribed monetary threshold are not maintainable unless a specified exception applies.

Expiry of the maximum statutory period for issuing a show-cause notice under the Customs Act, 1962 makes continued detention of seized goods impermissible, including where the permitted extension period has also elapsed. Further proceedings concerning the seized gold articles cannot continue, and their release remains subject to applicable customs duty and warehousing charges. The seizure particulars record the collective weight of the gold bangle and chain as 233 grams. Warehousing charges are payable only up to 26 November 2025, calculated at the rates applicable on the detention date.

Transferable advance licences allegedly obtained through misrepresentation or fraud raise questions on whether imports remain valid until the licensing authority suspends or cancels the licence. Key issues include the licensing authority's power and duty to cancel fraudulently obtained licences, customs duty liability of transferee importers relying on endorsed licences, and exposure to confiscation and penalties for acts or omissions rendering imported goods liable to confiscation. The scope of penalty under the Customs Act is considered in relation to imports made under licences later alleged to have been obtained fraudulently.

Release of seized gold jewellery was linked to the statutory requirement of a show-cause notice before confiscation, including issues of waiver of notice and personal hearing under Section 124. The special leave petitions challenging non-compliance with that requirement were dismissed because a coordinate Bench had dismissed an identical special leave petition. The dismissal left the challenged position undisturbed without setting out any further substantive determination on the notice, confiscation, or waiver issues.