Equivalent value attachment under money laundering law upheld where received funds were treated as proceeds of crime and prior-acquired property could...
Container storage charges - The High Court upheld the decision of the single judge, stating that since the goods were indeed confiscated by customs authorities while in transit, the port trust was justified in levying container storage charges. The appellant's inactivity after requesting permission to de-stuff the goods did not absolve them of liability. The court dismissed the appellant's argument that containers could not be considered "goods" under the Customs Act. It upheld the legality of the customs authorities' orders of confiscation, as they had the power to confiscate both goods and containers under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
Container storage charges - The High Court upheld the decision of the single judge, stating that since the goods were indeed confiscated by customs authorities while in transit, the port trust was justified in levying container storage charges. The appellant's inactivity after requesting permission to de-stuff the goods did not absolve them of liability. The court dismissed the appellant's argument that containers could not be considered "goods" under the Customs Act. It upheld the legality of the customs authorities' orders of confiscation, as they had the power to confiscate both goods and containers under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4814 
Join Channel 
