TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the seized exotic animals and birds were "prohibited goods" or otherwise goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962; (ii) Whether continuation of the customs case amounted to abuse of the process of court warranting quashment under the inherent jurisdiction.
Issue (i): Whether the seized exotic animals and birds were "prohibited goods" or otherwise goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: The liability under the customs penal provisions depended on whether the goods were shown to be prohibited or liable to confiscation under the statutory scheme. The seized animals and birds were not shown to be notified as prohibited goods under the relevant customs provisions, nor were they brought within the prohibition clause through the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 or the Foreign Trade regime relied upon by the department. The materials also did not establish that the goods were imported contrary to any legally effective prohibition so as to attract confiscation and penal consequences.
Conclusion: The seized animals and birds were not established to be prohibited goods or goods liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (ii): Whether continuation of the customs case amounted to abuse of the process of court warranting quashment under the inherent jurisdiction.
Analysis: Since the foundational statutory ingredients for the alleged customs offence were not made out, further continuation of the prosecution would serve no legitimate purpose. The inherent power was therefore invoked to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice, as the allegations did not disclose a sustainable case for proceeding further.
Conclusion: The customs case was liable to be quashed in exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
Final Conclusion: The proceedings could not legally continue once the statutory basis for treating the seized goods as prohibited or confiscable was absent, and the criminal customs case was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where seized goods are not shown to fall within a legally operative prohibition or confiscatory regime, continuation of criminal customs proceedings constitutes abuse of process and may be quashed under inherent powers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
