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 goods imported before the issuance of the public notice dated 18 September 1974 could be confiscated and subjected to redemption fine and penalties on the ground that the import licences for synthetic resins did not cover polyester resin chips of textile grade. (ii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to a detention certificate for the purpose of claiming waiver of demurrage charges.
Issue (i): Whether goods imported before the issuance of the public notice dated 18 September 1974 could be confiscated and subjected to redemption fine and penalties on the ground that the import licences for synthetic resins did not cover polyester resin chips of textile grade.
Analysis: The public notice and the contemporaneous circular clarified that licences issued for synthetic resins would not be valid for polyamide resins, polyester resins, and polyester chips of textile grade, but expressly provided that imports already made, shipments already effected, or irrevocable letters of credit already opened before the date of the notice would not be affected. The imports in question had been made before the notice, and no counter was filed to dispute that fact. The Court also treated the clarification as binding and prospective in operation, so the earlier imports could not be brought within the later restriction. Accordingly, confiscation under the Customs Act and the consequential redemption fine and penalties could not stand.
Conclusion: The confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were unjustified and liable to be set aside in favour of the petitioners.
Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to a detention certificate for the purpose of claiming waiver of demurrage charges.
Analysis: The goods had been detained and not released on account of an erroneous customs action rather than any default on the part of the importers. Since the detention was not attributable to the petitioners, the conditions for issuance of a detention certificate were satisfied. The petitioners were therefore entitled to the certificate to pursue remission of demurrage before the appropriate authority.
Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to a detention certificate.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned customs orders were quashed, and the respondents were directed to issue a detention certificate, with costs awarded to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: A later customs clarification or public notice operates prospectively and cannot be applied to defeat imports already made before its issuance where the instrument itself saves prior imports.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
