News Flash
  • Two-Days' Training on "Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs)" for Group 'A' officers of CBIC on 15th & 16th April, 2019 at NACIN, Faridabad Click Here
  • Allocation of charges of Members of CBIC Click Here
  • Two-Days' Training on "Establishment & Administration" for Group 'A' officers of CBIC on 11th & 12th April, 2019 at NACIN, Faridabad- Click Here
  • Result of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation Examination held on 15.03.2019 Click Here
  • Final Report on Two Swachhta Projects for the F.Y. 2018-19 Report | Format
  • In order to reduce illicit cultivation, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau (CEIB) has issued a Whatsapp No : 9686505002 for uploading of images of illicit cultivated area of opium and poppy by general public.
  • REQUEST FOR EMPANELMENT (RFE) Of Telecom Service Providers for Supply of 3G/4G SIM Cards to CBIC offices. Bids to be submitted till 08.04.2019 by 1:00 p.m
  • Appointment of common authority for the purpose of exercise of powers under sections 73,74, 75 and 76 of the CGST Act, 2017
  • Draft Seniority list of IRS (C&CE) officers in the grade of Joint Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise for the period 2007-08 to 2011-12 Click Here
  • NACIN, Mumbai, under aegis of Multi- Disciplinary School of Economic Intelligence (MDSEI), is conducting a two days Workshop on the topic “Analysis of GST Frauds involving Fake Invoices” on 18th and 19th March, 2019 at NACIN Complex, Mumbai.Click Here
View all




Name of the Party

Subject Heading


2014 (1) ECS (206) (Tri-Del)(206 KB)

Manjit Singh

Seizure under Sec. 110A of Customs Act, 1962 -Just by furnishing affidavit claiming to be to the owner, one does not become bonafide owner of the seized goods. While ordering provisional release, the interests of the revenue have to be adequately safeguarded


2014 (3) ECS (90) (HC-All.)(563 KB)

Gopi Chand Soni and Another

The gold was seized on the reasonable belief that the same has been imported into India from Nepal in contravention of notification No.9/96 dated 22.1.1996. The case was not found to be decided on the settled principles of law, relating to the burden of proof, and the reliance upon the statements under Section 108 of the Act.