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 the confiscation of the truck and appropriation of the security furnished for its provisional release could be sustained in the absence of material showing illegal import of the goods, and without notice to the owner or a call upon the financer to produce the truck.
Analysis: The record did not show any independent inquiry by the customs authorities into the nature or origin of the seized powder. No material established that the goods were of foreign origin, and no lawful presumption of illegal import could therefore be drawn merely because the vehicle had first been intercepted by the police and later handed over to customs. The financer had only furnished security for provisional release and there was nothing to show that it was required to produce the truck for confiscation and failed to do so. The record also did not show that notice had been given to the owner before confiscation.
Conclusion: The confiscation and appropriation of the security were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The challenge succeeded and the impugned customs action was annulled, with consequential relief as permissible in law.
Ratio Decidendi: Confiscation under Section 115 of the Customs Act, 1962 cannot rest on an unverified presumption of illegal import, and security furnished for provisional release cannot be appropriated unless the person concerned was lawfully called upon to produce the goods and failed to do so.