New Delhi, Sep 25: LG Electronics India Ltd has received a show cause notice from the Customs authorities for the recovery of Rs 153.58 crore as customs duty for allegedly not including royalty payments in the assessable value of certain imported goods, the company has stated in a stock exchange filing.

The show cause notice has been issued following an investigation carried out by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), alleging non-inclusion of royalty payments in the assessable value of certain imported goods.

The notice, dated September 22, was issued by the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Port in Navi Mumbai, and was received by the company on September 24.

Meanwhile, LG Electronics, along with arch rival and compatriot Samsung, are also facing an investigation for alleged wrong ⁠claims of concessional 5 per cent customs duty on imported OLED glass screens. The DRI authorities have expressed the view that the concessional rate is meant for the older LCD and LEDs used in products sold in the mass market. For OLED parts, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence is of the opinion that both Samsung and LG should have paid a 15 per cent customs duty, according to a Reuters report.

LG Electronics is reported to have sent responses to written questions by the authorities on its OLED imports and has voluntarily deposited the money to pay for the difference in customs duty as estimated by officials.

Meanwhile, LG Electronics India reported a 27.2 per cent year-on-year surge in net profit to Rs 653 crore for the first quarter of financial year 2026-27compared with the corresponding figure of Rs 513 crore in the same quarter of 2025-26, driven by strong summer demand and premium product sales.

The company’s revenue rose 15.5 per cent during the April-June quarter to Rs 7,233 crore compared with the corresponding figure of Rs 6,262 crore in the same quarter of the previous financial year.

New Delhi, Sep 25: The Delhi High Court has held that Medical Assessment Boards assessing candidates for admission to the MBBS course cannot interfere with or reduce the percentage of disability recorded in a valid Unique Disability Identity (UDID) card, and must confine themselves to assessing the candidate’s functional competency.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh made the observation while allowing two petitions filed by NEET-UG 2026 candidates, whose disability percentages were reduced by Medical Assessment Boards during the admission process, resulting in their removal from the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category.

The High Court set aside the assessment and eligibility certificates issued in both cases and directed the authorities to permit the petitioners to participate in the third round of NEET-UG 2026 counselling and the mop-up round, if any, according to their rank and entitlement under the PwBD category, treating their disabilities as recorded in their respective UDID cards.

One of the petitioners, an 18-year-old candidate with permanent visual disability, possessed a Disability Certificate and UDID card recording 60 per cent permanent disability. His NEET-UG 2026 admit card also recorded his disability as blindness and granted him compensatory time. He secured 398 out of 720 marks in the examination and had a PwBD rank of 409. However, after appearing before the Medical Assessment Board at Lady Hardinge Medical College, his disability was assessed at 30 per cent, although the Board certified him as eligible to pursue the MBBS course, capable of undertaking it and not posing a threat to patients.

The Appellate Medical PwBD Assessment Board at Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital subsequently concurred with the 30 per cent assessment. His candidature was thereafter shifted from the PwBD category to the General category, resulting in his exclusion from the first round of counselling under the PwBD category.

The other petitioner, Aashiya, had a permanent locomotor disability of 61 per cent recorded in her Disability Certificate and UDID card. She had secured 363 out of 720 marks in NEET-UG 2026, with a PwBD rank of 638. Her disability was re-quantified at 16 per cent by the Primary Disability Assessment Medical Board, and the appellate board subsequently confirmed the same, rendering her ineligible for PwBD reservation. She too could not participate in the first round of counselling under the category.

The petitioners contended that the UDID card is the primary document for establishing the extent of disability and that the Medical Assessment Boards were required only to undertake a functional assessment and did not have the power to reassess the percentage of disability.

On the other hand, the respondent authorities relied on the Guidelines on Assessment of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities for Admission to the MBBS Course, 2026, contending that the Medical Assessment Boards were empowered to determine the candidates’ functional competency.

In its judgment, the High Court observed that the Guidelines specifically provide that the UDID card “shall serve as the primary documentary evidence of the existence, nature and extent of the specified disability” and that while the Medical Assessment Board has to independently determine the candidate’s functional competency, eligibility cannot be based solely on the category or percentage recorded in the UDID card.

Justice Singh held that the provisions “do not empower the Board to revisit the percentage of disability recorded in the UDID card”.

“A combined reading of these provisions shows that eligibility for reservation under the PwBD category is determined by the benchmark disability prescribed under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The UDID card issued under the Act is therefore the primary document for that purpose,” the High Court said.

It further observed that the Medical Assessment Board is empowered to assess whether a candidate can complete the MBBS curriculum and subsequently undertake the profession of medicine, but “it cannot interfere with the disability recorded in the UDID card”.

The High Court also referred to Sections 56, 57 and 59 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, stating that the statutory framework provides for certification of disability by designated authorities and an appellate remedy against such certification.

“If any of the respondents is aggrieved by the UDID card, the remedy is to appeal against the decision of the certifying authority. It is not open to a Medical Assessment Board to disregard or reduce the recorded percentage at the stage of admission,” the judgment held.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Om Rathod vs. Director General of Health Services, the High Court reiterated that disability assessment boards must focus on functional competence rather than merely quantifying disability.

The Supreme Court had observed that “Disability Assessment Boards must focus on the functional competence of persons with disabilities and not merely quantify the disability”.

The Delhi High Court said that permitting Medical Assessment Boards to alter the disability percentage recorded in a valid UDID card would render it a “mere paper formality” and “meaningless”, which was not the mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.

Setting aside the assessments and eligibility certificates issued by the Medical Assessment Boards in both cases, the High Court directed the authorities to permit the petitioners to participate in the third round of NEET-UG 2026 counselling and the mop-up round, if any, treating their disabilities as recorded in their respective UDID cards.

However, it declined the petitioners’ request to create supernumerary seats, observing that the first two rounds of counselling had already concluded and seats had been allotted. Allowing the writ petitions, Justice Singh observed that the petitioners could still be accommodated in the third and mop-up rounds, distinguishing their case from those where counselling had already concluded with no remaining round.

Ahmedabad, Sep 25: A Ugandan national was arrested at Ahmedabad’s Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel International Airport (SVPIA) after the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) seized 981 grams of cocaine allegedly concealed inside the telescopic handle and plastic support parts of his trolley bag, officials said on Friday.

Acting on specific intelligence developed by the DRI’s Ahmedabad Zonal Unit, officers intercepted the passenger after he arrived at SVPIA on Qatar Airways flight QR-534 on September 24.

The passenger had allegedly arrived with narcotic substances concealed in his baggage.

According to the DRI, the passenger initially denied carrying any contraband.

A detailed examination of his trolley bag, however, led officers to detect white powdery substances packed in polythene bags and “cleverly” concealed inside the bag’s telescopic handle and plastic support components.

The recovered substance weighed 981 grams and tested positive for cocaine, following which it was seized under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The passenger was arrested under the Act.

Further investigation is underway to establish the source of the cocaine, its intended destination and the wider network, if any, involved in the alleged smuggling attempt.

The seizure comes days after the DRI reported a series of intelligence-led operations across the country in which more than 845 kg of narcotic and psychotropic substances were seized and 15 people arrested.

Among the cases was the seizure of around 5.8 kg of cocaine from an Indian passenger arriving at Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport from Dubai via Doha on September 15. The cocaine was found in nine packets inside his checked-in baggage.

In another recent case, the DRI seized 2.659 kg of cocaine worth an estimated Rs 13.295 crore in two separate operations at Mumbai airport in May.

One passenger arriving from Addis Ababa was found carrying 1.575 kg of liquid cocaine in eight pouches, while an African male passenger was found to have ingested capsules containing 1.084 kg of cocaine. Both were arrested under the NDPS Act.