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 rules against warehouse sealing in imported goods case, directs respondents to desist.</h1> <h3>M/s. Kyodo Technology Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Satish Molasi Authorized Signatory Versus Union of India</h3> The court addressed the petitioner's concerns regarding the sealing of their rented warehouse during an inquiry related to imported goods. It was noted ... Sealing of Complete Warehouse - grievance of the petitioner is that the rented warehouse of the petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to use the said warehouse despite the petitioner paying the rent to the landlord - HELD THAT:- Mr. Harpreet Singh has taken instructions and he states that the petitioner may approach the respondents today, or tomorrow, and that necessary orders would be passed for placing the goods in question in a bonded warehouse, and deasealing of the petitioner’s warehouse, so that the petitioner could put the same to use. So far as the petitioner’s prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay the rent for the period that the rented warehouse premises have remain seized is concerned, in these proceedings, we are not in a position to pass any such directions as the same would involve determination of disputed questions of fact. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to pursue its other remedies in this regard before an appropriate forum/ Court. Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Sealing of rented warehouse by respondents during inquiry regarding imported goods.2. Petitioner's grievance regarding inability to use the warehouse despite paying rent.3. Absence of provision in Customs Act allowing complete sealing of warehouse.4. Petitioner's request for direction to respondents to pay rent for seized warehouse.5. Court's decision on the matter and directions given.Analysis:Issue 1: The court addressed the concern raised by the petitioner regarding the sealing of their rented warehouse by the respondents during an inquiry related to imported goods. The petitioner highlighted that the warehouse was sealed, preventing them from utilizing it despite paying rent to the landlord.Issue 2: The petitioner argued that there is no provision in the Customs Act that permits the respondents to seal the entire warehouse. The court noted this submission and considered the petitioner's predicament due to the sealing of the warehouse.Issue 3: Respondent's counsel, Mr. Harpreet Singh, informed the court that the petitioner could approach the respondents to resolve the matter. He assured that necessary orders would be passed to place the goods in a bonded warehouse and de-seal the petitioner's warehouse for their use.Issue 4: The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to pay rent for the period the warehouse remained seized. However, the court refrained from issuing such a direction in the present proceedings as it involved disputed factual questions. The petitioner was advised to pursue other remedies in this regard before the appropriate forum or court.Issue 5: Based on Mr. Harpreet Singh's statement, the court directed the respondents to ensure the desealing of the petitioner's warehouse and the placement of the goods in question in a bonded warehouse as per the law. The court disposed of the petition with this direction, leaving the petitioner open to pursue other remedies in relation to the rent payment issue before the appropriate forum or court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
