From Form to Substance: Reinterpreting Electronic Evidence under Section 138-C, Customs Act, 1962
by Rachit Jain*, Harshdeep Khurana** and Dhanur Gupta***
Customs Act 1962
Customs Baggage (Declaration and Processing) Regulations 2026: Key Rules Explained
The new rules streamline procedures for declaring accompanied and unaccompanied baggage, temporary import or re-import of personal items, baggage examination, transit between customs stations, and custody or disposal of detained goods.
Baggage Rules 2026: Key Provisions, Allowances & Duty-Free Limits Explained
The Ministry of Finance has notified the new Baggage Rules, 2026, effective from 2-2-2026, replacing the earlier 2016 rules. These rules outline the duty-free allowances and conditions for passengers, tourists, returning residents, foreigners transferring residence, and crew members.
Aluminium shelves used for growing mushroom classifiable as ‘aluminium structures’, not ‘parts’ of agricultural machinery: SC
When interpreting a tariff heading involved in a classification dispute, the tribunal or court may need to invoke and rely on the common or trade parlance test to understand the meaning and scope of the terms used in that tariff heading.
Read Why CESTAT set aside penalties against E-rickshaw manufacturer alleged to have evaded duty in import classification dispute
The Tribunal stated that simply failing to disclose facts is not enough to extend the limitation period. Suppression must be deliberate and intended to evade duty and since no such intent is shown in the present case, the extended period cannot apply.
Rajasthan High Court: Can arrest warrants be converted into bailable warrants in economic/heinous offences? Larger Bench to decide
“Judicial decorum and legal propriety mandates that where a Single Bench or Division Bench does not agree with the decision of the Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the matter should be referred to a Larger Bench.”
Delayed Show Cause notice by Customs — Is the Owner of goods still liable for redemption fine, penalty or interest? Delhi HC answers
The Court considered how the timing of a Show Cause Notice by Customs Department impacts the owner’s liability.
Pending case not sufficient ground to restrict foreign travel: Bombay HC refuses to grant stay in Rs. 30 crores tax evasion case
The Court stated that it must balance the right of the investigating agency, and the right of the person facing prosecution to travel in India and abroad.
Commissioner of Customs is a stranger to contract of sale, cannot re-determine FOB value of export goods: CESTAT
“The customs officer can reject the transaction value as the assessable value and re-determine it as per the Valuation Rules for the purpose of imposing duty, but this would not change the transaction value for the purpose of receiving foreign remittance.”
2025 SCC Vol. 4 Part 4
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 438 — Anticipatory bail — In corruption offences: Law clarified on grant of anticipatory bail in
Baggage Rules required to be re-looked to ensure no harassment of genuine tourists/travellers carrying gold jewellery: Delhi High Court
Bona fide tourists/travellers, travelling for social engagements in India with gold, which could be of a much higher value than the permissible limits, cannot to be expected to file detailed declarations, as this can make the entire process of entering India and exiting from airports extremely unfriendly or onerous.
[Section 129-E, Customs Act] | Tribunal has discretion to dispense obligation to deposit duty/interest or penalty in cases of undue hardships: Delhi High Court
Section 129-E of Customs Act, 1962 makes it obligatory to deposit the duty/penalty pending the appeal and if a party does not comply either with the main Section or with any order that might be passed under the proviso, the Appellate Authority is fully competent to reject the appeal for non-compliance.
Drawback benefits available on gold exports despite non-payment of basic custom duty, if additional duty is paid during import: Delhi High Court
“Once the petitioner had paid the duties as contemplated under Section 3 of the Tariff Act, 1975, it could not be possibly contended that the goods were imported ‘duty free’.”
Supreme Court’s Split verdict on Settlement Commission’s jurisdiction in case of seized goods mentioned under Section 123 of the Customs Act 1962
Supreme Court was called upon to decide whether a settlement remedy under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, would be available for the seized goods, which are specified under Section 123 of the said Act, the bench of Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ gave a spilt verdict and referred the matter to a larger bench.