https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102529 The appellant, a Government Company acting as a custodian under Section 45 of the Customs Act, challenged the vires of Section 45(3) in the High Court of Karnataka. The Tribunal emphasized the custodian's liability for missing imported parcels due to pilferage but noted the lack of evidence in this case. It highlighted the distinction between duty on pilfered goods and importer liability under relevant sections of the Customs Act. The Tribunal required compliance with Circular No. 58/96-Cus for duty demands on custodians and remanded the matter for proper investigation, awaiting the High Court's decision on the pending Writ Petition. en-us Fri, 26 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 15 Feb 2012 12:23:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102529 The appellant, a Government Company acting as a custodian under Section 45 of the Customs Act, challenged the vires of Section 45(3) in the High Court of Karnataka. The Tribunal emphasized the custodian's liability for missing imported parcels due to pilferage but noted the lack of evidence in this case. It highlighted the distinction between duty on pilfered goods and importer liability under relevant sections of the Customs Act. The Tribunal required compliance with Circular No. 58/96-Cus for duty demands on custodians and remanded the matter for proper investigation, awaiting the High Court's decision on the pending Writ Petition. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 26 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102529