Money-laundering proceedings require alleged proceeds of crime to be linked to criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence attributable to the person concerned. Where predicate proceedings against that person are quashed entirely because the investigating agency lacked jurisdiction, and the quashing remains operative, there is no subsisting predicate offence or corresponding proceeds-of-crime nexus. The Enforcement Directorate cannot independently preserve the predicate prosecution or rely on proceedings against other accused to establish the missing individual nexus. Proceedings under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act therefore cannot continue against that person.

Prolonged custody exceeding one year may, in an appropriate money-laundering prosecution, outweigh the statutory twin conditions governing bail. Serious allegations of impersonation, forgery and extortion, and material insufficient to satisfy the usual bail restrictions, do not preclude consideration of mitigating factors. Bail in the predicate-offence proceedings, pending investigation, and reliance on material that may fall outside the predicate offence can support release. Any grant of bail should include safeguards to secure attendance, protect witnesses and preserve the progressing trial.

Penalty under Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is subject to a maximum limit but must be fixed through reasonable, judicial and reasoned discretion proportionate to the contravention. Retaining the original penalty after excluding two remittance forms already adjudicated and recognising RBI write-off of another, without explaining the unchanged quantum, failed that standard. The penalty for non-realisation of export proceeds was therefore set aside as unreasoned and disproportionate and replaced with a lower penalty.

Continuing failure by a corporate debtor to deliver possession or refund amounts may constitute a subsisting default for limitation purposes under a financial creditor's Section 7 insolvency application. Where a revival scheme acknowledges the creditor's claim, that acknowledgment supports extension of limitation despite the three-year period ordinarily applicable from default. An unworkable revival scheme that has been set aside, and pending winding-up proceedings, do not independently bar Section 7 proceedings; insolvency resolution may continue where debt and default are established.

Accused persons already on bail must ordinarily receive summons to appear before a transferee Special Court before coercive process is used. Transfer of a complaint to the Special Court does not by itself justify immediate issuance of an arrest warrant where the accused have had no opportunity to appear before that court. Lawful coercive measures may be adopted only subsequently, if necessary to secure attendance. An arrest warrant issued without prior service of summons in these circumstances is illegal and liable to be set aside.

Bail assessment in an alleged gold-smuggling prosecution requires each accused to be assessed only for gold recovered from that person's possession. The aggregate value of capsules recovered from different persons cannot be attributed to every accused to determine punishment, and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code does not permit such aggregation. Extended custody, absence of any further request for investigative custody, sufficient opportunity to identify alleged organisers, and the applicant's local residence and employment supported release on conditions designed to protect the investigation and trial.

Bail pending investigation into alleged evasion of customs and anti-dumping duty through invalid certificates of origin was granted subject to conditions. The investigation was principally documentary, relevant records had been seized, and later supplier communications and revised origin documents could be verified while requiring the applicant's attendance. The risk of independent evidence tampering was not supported, particularly as another person connected with the import work was in custody. Bail required execution of a bond, cooperation with the investigation, attendance when called, passport surrender, and restrictions on foreign travel.

Parts designed and manufactured solely or principally for a particular machine are classified with that machine under Note 2 to Section XVI, unless a specified exclusion applies. Pins, bolts, diaphragms, valves, gaskets, seals, bushes, liners and allied items made exclusively for GEHO slurry pumps, with no independent function or use in other machinery, qualify as pump parts rather than residual material-based goods. In the absence of evidence of dual use or classification as interchangeable parts of general use, the declared classification as relevant pump and valve parts prevails, rendering consequential differential duty, interest, confiscation, fine and penalties unsustainable.

Lending an Importer-Exporter Code for consideration breaches the Foreign Trade Policy requirement that imports and exports use the code allotted to the concerned person and may attract customs penalty under Section 112. Penal liability must nevertheless remain proportionate to the established contravention; use of a different code in the offending import establishes no nexus with earlier lending. Penalty under Section 114AA is inapplicable where the subsequent import was filed under the importing entity's own code and is unconnected with the lender's earlier transactions.

Customs undervaluation allegations require authenticated electronic records and verified supplier invoices; electronic data must meet statutory certification and procedural safeguards, while unsigned, unattested invoices require proof of origin and authenticity. Transaction value may be rejected only upon substantiated reasons to doubt it and compliance with prescribed valuation procedures; contemporaneous import values should be examined where relevant. Duty attaches to the importer filing the bill of entry, so liabilities of separate IEC-holding entities cannot be recovered from another proprietor merely alleged to be a proxy. Confiscation and redemption fine require goods to remain available for confiscation. Absent these conditions, valuation-based duty, interest and penalty consequences lack legal foundation.

Pre-import condition breaches attract IGST only for imports shown, through bill-of-entry-wise and raw-material-wise import-export correlation, to have preceded the corresponding exports. Subsequent discharge of export obligations or export-obligation-discharge certificates does not itself preserve unconditional IGST exemption where an actual breach is established; the liability must be regularised under the applicable procedure. Authorisation-wise quantification is insufficient, particularly where valid clubbing of advance authorisations must be given effect. Interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty require substantive statutory authority and are not sustainable for the described IGST regularisation during the relevant period, especially where authorisation particulars were disclosed.

Under the Customs Act, a legal ground based on test reports already included in the assessment record is not additional evidence. Prior acceptance of a proposed assessment or waiver of personal hearing does not preclude a statutory appeal where omission of the ground was neither wilful nor unreasonable. Iron ore Fe content for export-duty classification and assessment must be calculated on a Wet Metric Ton basis, reflecting total goods weight including moisture. Contractual pricing on a Dry Metric Ton basis does not govern tariff classification or export-duty rates. DMT-based assessment requires fresh determination of Fe percentage, classification, value and duty using test reports, moisture content and assessment records.

Written acceptance of enhanced customs valuation under Section 17(5) dispenses only with the requirement for a speaking reassessment order; it does not waive the importer's statutory right to appeal or challenge rejection of the declared transaction value. Rejection requires compliance with Section 14 and Rule 12(2), including written grounds for doubting the declared value. General consent letters referring to contemporaneous imports, without comparable data on quantity, quality and timing, do not prove voluntary abandonment of valuation rights. Statutory appeal rights cannot be defeated by acquiescence, making reassessment and appellate rejection founded solely on written acceptance unsustainable.

Breach of import conditions for gold jewellery, including passenger ineligibility, inadequate foreign stay, non-declaration, non-payment of duty in convertible foreign currency and excess quantity, renders restricted gold prohibited goods for confiscation purposes. Redemption in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act is discretionary for prohibited goods, not a right. Refusal may rest on non-declaration, concealment, the nature and quantity of gold, and failure to establish lawful import. Judicial review under Article 226 is limited and does not extend to substituting that discretion unless its exercise is arbitrary or perverse.

Statutory appellate remedy against customs confiscation and penalty orders remains effective despite a mandatory pre-deposit of 7.5% of the penalty. The pre-deposit requirement alone does not justify writ intervention where adjudication has addressed the factual claim that the seized item was personal jewellery and found it to be a gold strip fashioned as a kada. Fact-specific precedent does not require writ jurisdiction whenever an appeal is available. Time spent pursuing writ proceedings may be claimed for exclusion under Section 14 of the Limitation Act before the appellate authority; the petitioner must pursue the statutory appeal.

Section 110(5) of the Customs Act limits freezing of a bank account to an initial six months, extendable by a further six months only on recorded reasons. Once the maximum twelve-month period expires, continued freezing is impermissible. Issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 124 does not independently authorise continuation of the freezing beyond that statutory period. The bank account must therefore be de-frozen after expiry of the maximum permissible period.

Customs duty exemption disputes fall outside High Court appellate jurisdiction under Sections 130 and 130E where they intrinsically concern the rate of duty or valuation for assessment. The jurisdictional exclusion has broad scope and covers entitlement to exemption for stores imported for salvage operations, because such questions are connected with duty assessment and may have wider fiscal ramifications. Challenges to Tribunal orders on those issues lie exclusively before the Supreme Court under Section 130E, rather than the High Court.

Statutory appellate remedy for a customs provisional-release order may displace writ intervention, even where the petitioner alleges that relied-upon reports were not supplied. The customs authority must supply those reports, while any request for testing by an independent agency may be considered by the appropriate authority. The resulting test report should be circulated before a final decision. The appellate process is to be considered expeditiously, rather than remanding the provisional-release matter in writ jurisdiction.

Section 28(9A)(b) treats a pending proceeding and operative interim protection that prevent customs determination as an enumerated circumstance, causing the Section 28(9) period to run from cessation of that circumstance. A Call Book transfer is consequential only, and an administrative circular cannot override this statutory timing rule. Where noticees request deferment pending related proceedings, know why determination is postponed, and fail to report cessation, communication requirements may be substantially fulfilled. Availability of an effective statutory appeal and the bar on approbation and reprobation weigh against discretionary writ relief; substantive duty-demand issues remain available in the appellate process.

Appellate Authority must decide the customs dispute independently on its own merits and without being influenced by prior judicial observations. The impugned order remained undisturbed, while the special leave petition was disposed of subject to that clarification. Pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of. This preserves an uninfluenced merits determination at the appellate stage despite non-interference with the impugned order.