Concessional basic customs duty was unavailable for imports because the exemption in force did not cover the relevant tariff goods, and strict construction prevented reading an omitted entry into its terms. A later notification restoring the benefit applied only prospectively from Gazette publication because it contained no express or necessary retrospective intent. The importer's claim of an exemption that had ceased before filing the Bills of Entry supported use of the extended limitation period. Prior imports therefore remained subject to duty notwithstanding the subsequent restoration of the exemption.

Specially designed disposable microcuvettes used exclusively with an analyser fall under CTI 9027 9090 as parts of analytical instruments, rather than CTI 3926 9099 as plastic articles. Chapter 90 Note 2(b) covers parts and accessories suitable for sole or principal use with a particular instrument without requiring permanent physical attachment. The microcuvettes' specialised dimensions, configuration, material and optical properties enabled calibration, spectrophotometry and accurate sample-and-reagent processing. Their lack of established general or alternative use demonstrated sole or principal suitability for the analyser. Disposable use does not preclude classification as a part or accessory; objective characteristics and functional use prevail over material composition.

Classification of surgical tools used in spinal procedures turns on their functional use and Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 90. Tools used by surgeons during operations, and not worn, carried or implanted in patients, fall under CTH 9018 as medical or surgical instruments rather than CTH 9021 as orthopaedic appliances. For 16 July 2018 to 12 December 2019, spinal surgical instruments qualified for the basic customs duty exemption under the then-applicable entry covering instruments and implants for severely physically handicapped patients. The corresponding unamended IGST entry continued to extend concessional IGST treatment to those instruments.

Rule 16 permits recovery of erroneously or excessively paid duty drawback but does not prescribe an express limitation period. Recovery power must therefore be exercised within a reasonable period determined by the circumstances. Where drawback availed in 2010 was pursued through a notice issued in 2018 and an order in 2022, the absence of fraud, suppression or any explanation for delay supported treating three years as the maximum reasonable period. A statutory appeal under Section 128(1) does not necessarily preclude writ jurisdiction where delayed recovery is challenged as lacking statutory authority. Consequential coercive recovery action cannot stand if the underlying recovery is time-barred.

Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 treats redemption of prohibited goods as discretionary, unlike redemption of other goods, which is mandatory. That discretion must be exercised judiciously on the facts and cannot be refused mechanically solely because goods are prohibited. Where there is no serious or prior violation and the imposed penalty is paid, redemption of confiscated gold jewellery should be permitted. The redemption fine must be determined consistently with applicable principles and cannot exceed the market price less applicable duty.

Duty drawback recovery for alleged non-realisation of export proceeds should be determined only after material official evidence of realisation, including DGFT receipts, is considered. A challenge based on non-service of a show-cause notice or denial of hearing is not established where no material proves non-receipt and available opportunities were not used. Procedural fairness nevertheless requires a further opportunity to substantiate realisation of export sale proceeds when the supporting documents could affect repayment liability. Recovery must therefore be determined after evaluating the relevant documentary material.

Provisional freezing of a bank account under the Customs Act is limited to six months, with a further extension not exceeding six months only for recorded reasons and prior communication. The statutory maximum is therefore twelve months. Issuance of a show cause notice and pending adjudication do not extend or preserve an attachment after that period expires. Continued freezing thereafter lacks legal authority, and the attachment ceases by efflux of time.

Section 110(5) limits provisional attachment of a bank account to six months, with a further extension of no more than six months where written reasons are recorded and prior communication is given. The maximum attachment period is therefore twelve months. Issuance of a show-cause notice and pending adjudication under Section 124 do not create an independent power to extend or revive the attachment after that limit expires. Continued freezing beyond the statutory period is unauthorised, requiring defreezing of the bank account.

Penalty for customs abetment requires material proving a Customs Broker's knowledge of the goods' true nature, conscious participation, or collusion with the exporter. Filing shipping bills, arranging containers, and processing exporter-supplied documents in the ordinary course, without more, do not establish the required mens rea; failure to investigate the goods' source alone is insufficient. An alternative statutory appellate remedy does not automatically preclude writ jurisdiction where the penal finding lacks a factual foundation for culpable abetment. Accordingly, penal liability cannot rest solely on procedural brokerage functions or inadequate further inquiry absent proof of knowing involvement.

Extended limitation for recovery of short-paid IGST under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act requires material establishing collusion, wilful misstatement, or suppression of facts. Where an importer disclosed the goods, tariff classification, and claimed notification benefit in the Bill of Entry accepted by the proper officer, a later departmental disagreement on classification or exemption eligibility, or a bare allegation, does not establish those jurisdictional facts. Recovery must therefore proceed, if at all, within the applicable limitation period. Availability of an appeal under Section 128 does not bar writ jurisdiction where the statutory preconditions for invoking the extended period are absent or proceedings are patently illegal.

Section 128 of the Customs Act allows 60 days to file a statutory appeal and permits condonation for only a further 30 days, leaving the Commissioner (Appeals) without power to condone a delay beyond that aggregate period. Where the appeal was delayed by counsel's undisputed medical condition and involved classification of imported goods, Article 226 jurisdiction was invoked exceptionally. The limitation dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was restored for merits adjudication after an opportunity of hearing.

Provisional release of imported goods during investigation or adjudication should avoid unnecessary detention while adequately protecting revenue. Where final differential duty has not been determined, payment of duty on the declared value coupled with a personal bond for any subsequently determined differential duty constitutes proportionate security. Requiring an additional bank guarantee is unjustified in those circumstances; goods may be released on payment of applicable declared duty and execution of the personal bond.

Imported edible goods must be sampled under the prescribed food-safety procedure by an authorised officer, with Customs sampling powers exercised consistently with that regime. A food-test report based on a sample drawn solely by a customs officer is excluded where a subsequent authorised sample and accredited-laboratory test establishes conformity with applicable standards. Provisional release pending assessment should not be withheld merely on suspicion without a seizure memo or recorded grounds that the goods are liable to confiscation. Assessment and classification remain subject to adjudication, and an appropriate personal bond for potential differential duty or penalty may be required.

Airport searches and medically completed hospital recoveries in body-packer matters are treated as a continuous public-place action governed by the NDPS Act's public-place search provision. Defective communication of the right to a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate can affect an initial personal search, but medically supervised recovery under the Customs Act procedure may independently support prima facie possession; a fresh personal-search notice is unnecessary after admission and voluntary medical action. Sampling and inventory departures require trial evidence and do not alone invalidate seizure at the bail stage. Commercial-quantity restrictions remain applicable, but prolonged, unadvanced pre-trial detention can warrant conditional bail under the constitutional right to speedy trial.

Regulation 17(1) requires a customs broker revocation notice within 90 days of the licensing authority receiving an offence report. Where no separate investigation report exists, Customs Act show-cause notices and their relied-upon documents constitute that report if they contain the investigation summary and prima facie allegations. The licensing authority cannot defer the mandatory period by later seeking documents already annexed to the notices. A notice issued after the prescribed period leaves no statutory authority to revoke the licence; revocation must be set aside and the licence restored.

Provisional release of detained imported goods under section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 may be granted pending adjudication where adequate safeguards protect recovery of differential duty. Payment of duty on the declared value, a bank guarantee for 30% of the differential duty, and a personal bond for the remaining 70% sufficiently secure revenue interests. Continued detention is unwarranted once these conditions are met, and the goods are to be released provisionally subject to compliance.

Conditional registration under Section 12AB and approval under Section 80G cannot make their applicability or consequential tax benefits contingent on future litigation. The statutory framework permits the Commissioner to grant or reject registration and approval in accordance with law, but does not confer power to impose conditions dependent on a future judicial outcome. Quasi-judicial powers must arise expressly from statute. Once granted, registration and approval operate according to law; any cancellation or withdrawal must follow the prescribed statutory mechanism. Conditions imposing such contingencies were beyond statutory jurisdiction and must be deleted.

Complete books of account, bills, vouchers, ledgers and stock registers that are produced, accepted and free from identified defects cannot be disregarded merely because the net-profit rate has declined. Increased consumption of goods, raw materials and components, together with higher employee costs, can explain a lower net-profit ratio. In the absence of rejection of the books, a marginal net-profit variation alone does not justify an addition; the addition based solely on that variation was deleted.

For unquoted equity shares, Section 56(2)(viib) taxes issue consideration exceeding fair market value, while Rule 11UA(2) permits valuation under the Net Asset Value or Discounted Cash Flow method. The Assessing Officer may scrutinise the valuation report, underlying data, assumptions and methodology, but cannot replace the selected prescribed method merely because projections, management estimates or standard disclaimers appear unsatisfactory. Rejection requires identified defects in the data, assumptions or methodology. Where both prescribed valuations supported the issue price and no specific defect was established, the Section 56(2)(viib) addition was deleted.

Post-2021 search-related reassessment requires information in the nature of incriminating material found during the search. Where reassessment was initiated on issues arising from seized material and returned income was accepted after verification, transport expenses unsupported by incriminating material could not be examined or disallowed through revisionary jurisdiction. The reassessment was therefore neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, rendering the revision invalid.