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 rules ownership key in confiscation case, favors foreign exporter for re-export.</h1> The High Court held that the goods could not be confiscated due to the lapses of the Delhi entity as the title did not pass to them. Ownership rights were ... Customs Confiscation - 'Importer' in relation to 'owner' - Latter taking precedence - Import control - Deeming provision - Detention certificate Issues:1. Confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, 1962.2. Validity of the Advance Import License.3. Title of goods and ownership rights.4. Misuse of import license and fraud.5. Rights of foreign exporter in case of confiscation.6. Interpretation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:The judgment involves an appeal against an order quashing the confiscation of goods by the Collector under the Customs Act, 1962. The case revolves around four consignments imported by an Indian national doing business in Hong Kong and a business entity in Delhi. The Delhi-based entity had misused an Advance Import License for Mulberry Raw Silk. The goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, and a show cause notice was issued for confiscation under Section 111(d) and penal action under Section 112. The license was subsequently canceled for misrepresentation and fraud. The appellant argued that the goods were liable for confiscation due to the misuse of the license by the Delhi entity.The High Court held that the title to the goods did not pass to the Delhi entity, and therefore, the goods could not be confiscated based on the entity's lapses. The Court emphasized that the ownership rights were crucial in determining confiscation. The Court rejected the argument that the Delhi entity became the owner of the goods under the Import (Control) Order, 1955, as the deeming provision was limited to customs clearance and not abandonment. The judgment concurred with the lower court's decision that the goods were rightfully exported by the foreign party, and confiscation was not warranted under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.The Court ruled in favor of the foreign exporter, permitting re-export of the goods upon payment of requisite export duty. The foreign exporter was entitled to a detention certificate for the wrongfully detained goods, making them liable for demurrage to the Bombay Port Trust. The judgment dismissed the appeal, allowing re-export subject to duty payment and directing the issuance of a detention certificate without costs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
