Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether property sold by the State Financial Corporation under section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, could be treated as subject to a customs charge so as to prevent the auction purchaser from removing the machinery.
Analysis: Section 29(2) provides that a transfer made by the financial corporation vests in the transferee all rights in the property as if the transfer had been made by the owner. The Customs Act provisions dealing with warehousing, control over warehoused goods, and liability for duty were examined, but they did not create any statutory charge over the machinery itself. The non obstante clause in section 46B gives overriding effect to the State Financial Corporations Act where there is inconsistency with other laws. On that basis, the customs authorities could not assert a continuing lien or charge over the sold assets merely because customs duty remained due from the loanee.
Conclusion: The auction purchaser was entitled to remove the machinery, and the customs authorities had no right to restrain its removal on the basis of an alleged customs charge.
Ratio Decidendi: Property transferred by a financial corporation in exercise of section 29 rights passes to the transferee free from any charge not created by law over the property itself, and an overriding non obstante clause excludes inconsistent claims under another enactment.