Search Results for "customs adjudication"

Trending :

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensat...
Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Disput...
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Sui...
Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Eschew Proof Affidavit in Probate Proceedings. ...
Supreme Court Allows Agriculturists' Appeal for Enhanced Compensation; Condones ...

Search Results for "customs adjudication"

684 result(s) found

Home Search Results

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 684 result(s)

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Show Cause Notice and Retrospective Amendment to Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 — Upholds Validity of Officers' Powers and Amendment.

3 Nov 2014

The petitioner, Sunil Gupta, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging a show caus...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petitions Challenging Customs Duty Demand on Jewellery Exports from SEZ — Held that goods manufactured in SEZ and exported are not liable to customs duty under Section 2(23) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with SEZ Act, 2005. The court ruled that the SEZ Act, 2005 is a complete code and overrides the Customs Act, and the demand of duty was contrary to the scheme of the SEZ Act.

19 Nov 2022

The petitioners, M/s. Renaissance Global Limited and M/s. Gold Star Jewellery Designs Pvt. Ltd., are companies engaged in the manufacture and export o...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Adjudicates Writ Petition Challenging Mandatory Pre-Deposit Under Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962. Assessee Claims That Requirement to Deposit 7.5% of Duty Demanded, Capped at Rs.10 Crores, Renders Appellate Remedy Illusory and Infringes Fundamental Rights to Trade and Livelihood.

7 Nov 2025

The petitioner, an importer of edible oils, challenged the mandatory pre-deposit requirement under Section 129E(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 before th...

High Court

High Court Quashes Prosecution Against Accused in Customs Act Case for Non-Compliance with Section 138(b) of Customs Act, 1962 — Delay in Filing Complaint Not Explained. Complaint Filed Beyond One-Year Limitation Period Without Any Extension or Explanation, Hence Liable to Be Quashed.

13 Mar 2019

The petitioner, Imtiaz Ahmed, was arraigned as Accused No.2 in CC No.210/2014 pending before the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Dakshina Ka...

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Section 498A IPC as Constitutionally Valid but Issues Guidelines to Prevent Misuse. The court held that the provision is not unconstitutional but requires safeguards against misuse through directions on arrest, investigation, and compounding of offences.

10 Mar 2025

The Supreme Court in this batch of writ petitions and appeals considered the constitutional validity of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, w...

High Court

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Against CESTAT Order Dismissing ROM Application as Time-Barred. Time Limit Under Section 129B(2) of Customs Act, 1962 Applies Only to Suo Moto Rectification, Not to Applications Filed by Parties.

10 Jul 2017

The appellant, M/s. Allied Fibers Ltd., imported capital goods between October 1994 and September 1995. A show cause notice was issued on 24.03.1998 d...

High Court

High Court of Bombay Examines Appeal by 100% Export Oriented Unit Against Customs Duty Confirmation Due to Export Obligation Shortfall. The Issue Pertains to Whether Extension of Letter of Permission by Development Commissioner Validates EOU Status and Precludes Customs Action Under Sections 61 and 72 of the Customs Act, 1962.

14 Feb 2013

The appellant, a 100% Export Oriented Unit (EOU) engaged in manufacturing HDPE ropes, was granted a letter of permission (LOP) dated 9 September 1998 ...

High Court

Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking Release of Sealed Factory Premises in Customs Duty Dispute — Petitioner Failed to Comply with Supreme Court's Conditional Order. Interest Demand Under Section 28AA of Customs Act, 1962 is Statutory and Automatic, No Separate Demand Required.

14 Nov 2024

The petitioner, B.V. Jewels, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and exporting gold and jewellery, operates an export processing unit in SEEPZ...

High Court

High Court of Karnataka Quashes Prohibition Order Against Customs Broker in Licensing Dispute — Regulation 23 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 Cannot Be Invoked Without Prior Suspension or Revocation Proceedings. The court held that Regulation 23 is a residuary power for urgent preventive action and cannot be used to bypass the specific procedures for suspension and revocation under Regulations 17 and 20.

6 Feb 2018

The petitioner, M/s. Cargomar, a customs broker governed by the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, filed a writ pe...

High Court

Bombay High Court Directs Return of Security Deposit with Interest in Customs Duty Dispute — Petitioner Entitled to Refund of Rs.10 Crores with 18% Interest After CESTAT Set Aside Confiscation Order. The Court held that once proceedings are finalized in favour of the importer, the revenue cannot retain the security deposit and must return it with interest from the date of deposit under the Customs Act, 1962.

14 Jun 2010

The petitioner, M/s Pride Foramer, a company engaged in offshore oil exploration, imported a rig 'Pride Pensylvania' for a contract with ONGC. On 15 M...

9 10 11 12 13

Full Name * Username * Mobile Number * Email Address * State/UT * City * Password * Confirm Password * Referral Code (Optional)