Alternative statutory remedy and unexplained delay barred writ review of customs confiscation adjudication, leaving merits for appellate consideration...
Authorised courier due diligence protects against penalties where declared exports conceal prohibited goods despite proper documentation and customs p...
Customs-controlled container movement now extends to DP World facilities, subject to segregation, inspections, reconciliation, and EXIM cargo priority...
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to recall the permission granted to respondent No. 3 to auction the cargo under the bills of lading and direct handover of the entire sale proceeds unconditionally. The HC held that the petitioner, as the beneficial owner and importer, had the obligation to get the goods cleared by following the prescribed customs procedures within 30 days of their arrival at ICD Wardha. The actions of respondents 1-3 in auctioning the goods due to non-clearance by the petitioner were valid, and the petitioner was liable for rent/demurrage charges u/s 150(2) of the Customs Act. The plea of fraud invoked by the petitioner required leading evidence, which is not permitted under Article 226.
The HC dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking to recall the permission granted to respondent No. 3 to auction the cargo under the bills of lading and direct handover of the entire sale proceeds unconditionally. The HC held that the petitioner, as the beneficial owner and importer, had the obligation to get the goods cleared by following the prescribed customs procedures within 30 days of their arrival at ICD Wardha. The actions of respondents 1-3 in auctioning the goods due to non-clearance by the petitioner were valid, and the petitioner was liable for rent/demurrage charges u/s 150(2) of the Customs Act. The plea of fraud invoked by the petitioner required leading evidence, which is not permitted under Article 226.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.