TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Customs department's improper storage charge quashed for lack of legal basis.</h1> The court found that the customs department lacked legal basis to charge the petitioner for storage expenses of seized goods since they were not stored in ... Seized goods - Storage and upkeep charges Issues:1. Seizure of goods and cash by customs officers2. Direction to petitioner to pay expenses for seized goods3. Legal provision for charging expenses for storageAnalysis:1. The petitioner had goods and cash seized by customs officers, with a portion of the seized items being returned to him. The petitioner challenged the order directing him to pay a specific amount related to the seized goods.2. The customs department demanded Rs. 4,379.96 from the petitioner for expenses incurred in storing the seized goods. However, it was revealed that the seized goods were not stored in a warehouse as defined under the Customs Act, and there was no legal basis for charging the petitioner for storage expenses.3. The court noted that the goods were kept in places not designated as warehouses under the Customs Act. Since the goods were not stored in a warehouse, the charges for storage and upkeep could not be levied on the petitioner. The counsel for the customs department failed to provide any legal provision to justify making the petitioner liable for the charges.4. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court found that the order directing the petitioner to deposit the amount for expenses was not legal. Consequently, the court quashed the order requiring the petitioner to pay the specified amount. The writ petition was allowed, with each party bearing their own costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
