Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2024 (6) TMI 4 - AT - Customs

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Customs jurisdiction cannot be expanded to enforce hazardous-chemicals compliance, making CCSP suspension unsustainable. Customs authorities could not suspend or restrict CCSP approval under the Customs Act and the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 to ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                              Customs jurisdiction cannot be expanded to enforce hazardous-chemicals compliance, making CCSP suspension unsustainable.

                              Customs authorities could not suspend or restrict CCSP approval under the Customs Act and the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 to enforce alleged breaches of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989. The customs framework was confined to customs-area supervision and obligations arising under that framework, while hazardous-chemicals compliance belonged to an independent environmental regime enforced by designated authorities. Public notices and circulars could not expand statutory power. Alleged exceedance of hazardous-chemical thresholds and any need for regularization under that separate regime therefore could not justify the impugned customs action, and the appeals were allowed.




                              Issues: (i) Whether the Commissioner of Customs had jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 to suspend CCSP approval and impose restrictions for alleged breach of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989; (ii) Whether alleged exceedance of hazardous-chemical threshold quantities and the requirement of regularization under the hazardous-chemicals regime could lawfully sustain the impugned action.

                              Issue (i): Whether the Commissioner of Customs had jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 to suspend CCSP approval and impose restrictions for alleged breach of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989?

                              Analysis: The regulatory scheme under section 141 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 was held to be confined to customs-area supervision and to obligations arising under the Customs Act and regulations made thereunder. Regulation 6(1)(i) was treated as a contextual safety obligation and regulation 6(1)(q) as limited to the Customs Act and instruments issued thereunder. The Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 were treated as an independent regime enforced by designated environmental authorities, not by customs officers. Public notices and circulars could not enlarge statutory power or create a jurisdiction to enforce another law. The Commissioner therefore lacked domain competence to proceed on alleged violations of the hazardous-chemicals rules.

                              Conclusion: The action was without jurisdiction and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

                              Issue (ii): Whether alleged exceedance of hazardous-chemical threshold quantities and the requirement of regularization under the hazardous-chemicals regime could lawfully sustain the impugned action?

                              Analysis: The threshold-based obligations under the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989 were held to operate within that separate statutory framework and not as a trigger for suspension of CCSP approval under customs law. The record showed that safety audits had been conducted and that the customs order relied substantially on notices and directions of the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, which were not part of the customs regulatory power invoked in the proceedings. The notion that customs could insist on "regularization" of hazardous-cargo permissions as a precondition for continuation of customs custodianship was rejected as unsupported by the governing regulations and inconsistent with the statutory scheme.

                              Conclusion: Threshold exceedance and non-regularization under the hazardous-chemicals regime could not justify the impugned suspension and restrictions, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

                              Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable because customs authorities could not use the CCSP regulatory framework to enforce compliance with an independent environmental statute, and the appeals were allowed.

                              Ratio Decidendi: Where a delegated customs regulation does not incorporate or authorize enforcement of obligations under another independent statute, customs authorities cannot suspend or restrict approval by invoking that external statute or by relying on public notices or circulars to enlarge their powers.


                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found