#Section 28

The tribunal ruled that customs duty can only be recovered from the actual importer of goods, not from directors of companies that sold title documents on the high seas. This bars revenue from issuing joint several demands against high sea sellers' directors, protecting corporate officers from liability for obligations that legally belong solely to the importer.

A Madras High Court second appeal confirmed that an ex-parte decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be set aside when the balance sale price is deposited after an unreasonable delay. The decision upholds the 1988 sale deed and signals that delayed payments defeat specific-performance orders, affecting buyers and sellers in property deals.

The Gujarat High Court held that interest on excess compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act accrues from the date of the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award (or permanent possession), not from the date of temporary possession. This limits claimants' interest entitlement and clarifies future compensation calculations in land-acquisition cases.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that interest payable on land-acquisition compensation must be calculated on a simple-interest basis, not compounded, and that a petition filed after five years cannot raise a new objection. It also ordered correction of the arithmetic error under Section 152 CPC. The ruling affects all landowners receiving compensation under the 1894 Act.

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) ruled that interest on land acquisition compensation accrues from the date of the award under Section 11, not the notification date under Section 4(1). This aligns with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, impacting pending and future land acquisition disputes in Maharashtra.

Allahabad High Court holds that an officer authorized by the Appropriate Authority under Section 28(1)(a) of the PC & PNDT Act may file a complaint, even if not directly appointed by the State or Central Government.

The Customs Tribunal holds that Section 28 demands are invalid unless assessment is final, overturning penalties for undervaluation where provisional clearance occurred.

The Customs Appellate Tribunal holds that a Show Cause Notice issued beyond one year from clearance is time-barred, regardless of alleged misclassification, reinforcing limitation principles under Section 28.