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 the limitation period for exercising the option to redeem confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 begins to run without communication of the order granting redemption; (ii) whether the daughter and sole legal heir of the deceased passenger could be permitted to redeem the confiscated goods on compliance with the adjudication order.
Issue (i): Whether the limitation period for exercising the option to redeem confiscated goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 begins to run without communication of the order granting redemption.
Analysis: The order granting redemption had not been shown to have been duly communicated to the passenger. In the absence of proof of service, the redemption option could not be treated as having been brought to the notice of the person concerned. The period prescribed for exercising the option under Section 125 could therefore not be said to have commenced merely because the order had been passed.
Conclusion: The limitation period under Section 125 was not triggered, and it did not bar redemption of the goods.
Issue (ii): Whether the daughter and sole legal heir of the deceased passenger could be permitted to redeem the confiscated goods on compliance with the adjudication order.
Analysis: The passenger had died after the confiscation order, the petitioner's identity and relationship with the deceased passenger were not disputed, and the goods were of substantial value. Since the order had not been communicated and the petitioner was the legal heir, redemption could be permitted upon payment of the fine and penalty determined in the original adjudication order, together with compliance with the required formalities and an indemnity as to sole heirship.
Conclusion: The petitioner was permitted to redeem the confiscated goods in accordance with the order dated 26 July 2023, subject to payment and personal collection with indemnity.
Final Conclusion: The petitioner obtained relief enabling redemption and release of the confiscated goods, and the demurrage charges were waived in the peculiar facts of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The limitation for exercising a statutory redemption option does not commence unless the redemption order is duly communicated to the person entitled to exercise that option.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
