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 seizure of restricted goods imported through a high seas sale transaction could be sustained when no provision under the Exim Policy, import licence conditions, or the Customs law prohibited such transaction.
Analysis: The goods were admittedly covered by a notification placing them in the restricted import category and the petitioner held an import licence subject to the actual user condition. The record showed that the Foreign Trade authority declined to treat the transaction as within its purview and left the customs authorities to act under the Customs law. No provision was pointed out to show that a high seas sale of such goods between a trader and the actual importer was barred, or that the petitioner had violated any licence condition. In the absence of a legal prohibition, the apprehension of circumvention could not justify seizure.
Conclusion: The seizure was held to be bad in law and was quashed. The authorities were directed to process the Bill of Entry in accordance with law.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded because the impugned seizure could not be supported without a statutory prohibition against the high seas sale arrangement.
Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of an express legal bar under the governing import policy, licence conditions, or customs law, a high seas sale of restricted goods by an actual importer cannot be invalidated merely on suspicion of circumvention.