Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the directions for release of the balance items from the auctioned lots were sustainable when the required BIS certificate and other clearances were not produced.
Analysis: The disposal framework permitted withdrawal or cancellation of a lot before delivery and required item-specific permissions and no-objection certificates from the concerned authorities. The disputed items were not supported by the necessary clearance documents, including the BIS-related requirement for the electronic items and the requisite NOC for the cosmetic/drug-related items. Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962 permits sale of uncleared imported goods only with the permission of the proper officer, and the auction process could not override the need for statutory and regulatory compliance. In these circumstances, the earlier direction to release the goods could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The release of the disputed items was not permissible and the order directing delivery was liable to be set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order in favour of the writ petitioner was vacated, resulting in denial of the claimed release of the goods.
Ratio Decidendi: Unclaimed or uncleared imported goods may be sold or delivered only in accordance with customs law and the required item-specific statutory clearances and permissions; auction acceptance does not dispense with mandatory regulatory compliance.