TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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: Whether the Customs Act applied to goods manufactured in an Export Oriented Unit in an Export Processing Zone and removed into the domestic market without permission, and whether the sanction for prosecution and the consequent cognizance were without jurisdiction.
Analysis: The Unit was operating in a notified Export Processing Zone treated as a warehousing station and customs zone. Goods manufactured there were meant for export, and removal into the domestic market without permission and without payment of duty was treated as removal from a customs warehouse and as a deemed import. The Court held that such goods could be confiscated if removed without authorization. The contention that only the excise law applied was rejected because the zone enjoyed customs and excise exemptions, imported inputs were also exempt, and the Customs Act continued to govern removal from the zone.
Conclusion: The Customs Act applied, and the sanction for prosecution and cognizance were not without jurisdiction; the challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition was dismissed because diversion of goods from the Export Processing Zone to the domestic market attracted customs law and sustained the prosecution proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods manufactured in an Export Processing Zone and removed for domestic consumption without customs permission are subject to the Customs Act, as the zone is treated as a bonded customs area and such removal is equivalent to import.
TaxTMI 
