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>Court dismisses challenge on seized goods, orders costs. Decision based on investigation, document dispute, purchase denial.</h1> The Court dismissed the petition challenging the seizure of goods, directing petitioners to bear costs. The decision was based on ongoing investigation, ... Confiscation valid if V.C.R. and colour T.V. were imported without payment of import duty - Reason to believe - Writ jurisdiction Issues: Challenge of seizure based on alleged payment of import duty, mala fide action by respondents, legality of seizure under Customs Act, comparison with previous case laws, genuineness of Baggage Receipt, denial of purchase by petitioner, ongoing investigation.Analysis:1. Challenge of Seizure: The petitioners contested the seizure of a Colour Television and Video Cassette Recorder installed in a bus, claiming that import duty had been paid and the items were cleared at Customs. They alleged mala fide intentions by the respondents due to a refusal of extra facilities. Respondents, however, denied the payment of import duty and justified the seizure based on a raid at a dealer's premises, indicating a reasonable belief of possession of goods liable for confiscation.2. Legality under Customs Act: The petitioners relied on Section 110 of the Customs Act, arguing that seizure requires a reason to believe goods are liable for confiscation. They cited case laws but were distinguished as investigation was ongoing, unlike in the referenced cases where final orders had been passed. The Court noted that no challenge to statutory provisions was made in the present case.3. Genuineness of Baggage Receipt: The respondents disputed the authenticity of the Baggage Receipt provided by the petitioners, presenting a different version. Additionally, petitioner No. 2 denied purchasing the items from the original importer, adding complexity to the situation. The Court emphasized that the facts need further inquiry before a decision can be made, precluding the issuance of a writ of certiorari.4. Conclusion: The Court dismissed the petition, directing the petitioners to bear the costs. The decision was based on the ongoing investigation, the disputed authenticity of documents, and the denial of purchase by the petitioner. The judgment highlighted the need for a thorough inquiry before reaching a final determination in such cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
