Fork in the Road: The Curious Case of Bifurcated Jurisdiction in Indirect Tax Appellate Structure
by Tarun Jain†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 28
Customs Act
Extra-territorial Application of Customs Act, 1962
by Anamika Mishra†
Exploration of Extraterritorial Service of Summons under Customs Law
by Nupur Maheshwari†, Harshdeep Khurana†† and Siddhant Indrajit†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 2
Failure and non-supply of legible/translated copies of documents despite a request renders the order of detention illegal and bad in law; Delhi High Court sets aside the COFEPOSA detention order
Detaining Authority gravely erred in relying upon the illegible documents which is equivalent to non-placement of translated-RUDs in a language which the detenu understands, which consequently vitiates the ‘subjective satisfaction’ arrived at by the Detaining Authority.
Tripura High Court| Court can neither direct Central Government to make amendments in Wildlife Act, 1972 to include exotic species nor can direct to change classification of such bailable offence to non-bailable offence
Tripura High Court: In a public interest litigation seeking issuance of show cause to the respondents as to why a writ of
Does seized goods may be released in favor of an ‘owner’ or an ‘importer’ under Section 110-A Customs Act? Bombay High Court analyses
Nothing could prevent the legislature from specifically incorporating a provision in Section 110-A Customs Act, 1962 to also entitle, besides an owner, an importer, a beneficial owner or any person holding himself to be an importer to claim a right to seek provisional release of goods in terms of Section 110-A of Customs Act, 1962
IBC prevails over Customs Act once moratorium is imposed; CBIC has limited jurisdiction, cannot initiate recovery of dues: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana*, CJ and JK Maheshwari and Hima Kohli, JJ has held that the Insolvency and
Madras High Court applies doctrine of ‘substantial compliance’ to determine implications of limitation period in the Customs Act, 1962
Madras High Court: In a case where show cause notices were sent by Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Respondent 4) for short collection
Can’t let improper imports affect Indian farmers and national economy. “Prohibited goods” liable to absolute confiscation: Supreme Court
“When personal business interests of importers clash with public interest, the former has to, obviously, give way to the latter.”
CESTAT | Penalty imposed under S. 112 read with S. 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 set aside; Tribunal allows appeal stating absence of mens rea
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): Ashok Jindal (Judicial Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the impugned order
CESTAT | Whether confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty by the Lower Authority in absence of valid PSI certificate maintainable; Tribunal explains
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P.K. Choudhary (Judicial Member) partly allowed an appeal which was filed against the Order-in-Appeal
CESTAT | Interest on delayed refund under the provisions of S. 27A of Customs Act, 1962 does not arise; Tribunal allows appeal
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): P. Venkata Subba Rao (Technical Member) allowed an appeal which was filed against the
SC| The ‘precise’ time of publication of E-gazette significant to determine enforceability of Notifications
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, Indu Malhotra and KM Joseph, JJ has held that with the change in
CESTAT | Employee not liable for the actions of the senior while following instructions; Tribunal allows appeal and sets aside penalty under S. 112 (a) of Customs Act
Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): A Division Bench of Anil Choudhary (Judicial Member) and C.L. Mahar (Technical Member), allowed
All HC | Supply of imported goods to and from Duty Free Shops – an inter-State supply under IGST Act as goods do not cross the customs frontier
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Rajnish Kumar, JJ. dismissed a PIL seeking to ensure that the
Co-accused persons entitled to same benefit; sentence waived on grounds of parity: Delhi HC
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rekha Palli, J. while disposing of a petition, waived of the sentence awarded to
Recovery of narcotics from the body of suspect should be in compliance with statutory safeguards: Calcutta HC
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench comprising of Joymalya Bagchi and Ravi Krishan Kapur JJ., while setting aside the conviction and sentence
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 should be in harmony with Chapter IV of Part V of the Constitution
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the appellate power of the Supreme Court under Section 130E(b)of the Customs Act, 1962, the Bench
Notice to be given within six months for goods seized under Customs Act
Delhi High Court: While allowing a petition seeking return of a bracelet seized by the Custom Officers, the Single Bench of Sanjeev