TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court denies release of non-existent goods; suggests civil proceedings for liability & compensation</h1> <h3>BALJIT NUTRITION STORES (P) LTD. Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), ICD, TUGHLAKABAD, NEW DELHI</h3> BALJIT NUTRITION STORES (P) LTD. Versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), ICD, TUGHLAKABAD, NEW DELHI - 2018 (363) E.L.T. 96 (Del.) Issues:Release of confiscated goods subject to payment of redemption fine and warehousing; Absence of goods leading to re-export commitments not being fulfilled; Appropriateness of remedy sought; Liability of respondents for compensation or damages; Adjudication of dispute in writ proceedings vs. civil proceedings.Analysis:The petitioner sought the release of goods confiscated by customs authorities subject to payment of redemption fine and warehoused with the second respondent, Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR). The Court appointed a Local Commissioner who confirmed the absence of goods at the site, with CONCOR indicating that the goods were sent for upward storage to a third respondent after warehousing. An FIR was lodged, and investigations were ongoing.The absence of goods resulted in the petitioner being unable to fulfill re-export commitments, leading to a request for appropriate orders from the Court. It was noted that doubts existed regarding the goods matching the description in the bills of entry, with the customs authorities ordering redemption fine payment after 100% inspection and detention of goods. The petitioner also paid demurrage charges to CONCOR.While acknowledging the petitioner's justified grievance, the Court deemed the dispute unsuitable for adjudication in writ proceedings. The nature of the dispute, liability of respondents, extent of liability, and appropriate compensation or damages were considered matters for civil proceedings. Since the petitioner's goods were acquired after checks, valuation, and payment of duty, the Court held that the petitioner had no disability in proving certain facts.Consequently, the Court concluded that the petition seeking the release of non-existent goods could not be granted. The petitioner was advised to seek remedies in civil proceedings if desired, with all rights and contentions of the parties reserved. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 