https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401241 The court ruled in favor of the respondent on all substantial questions of law, upholding the Tribunal's decision. It affirmed that the warehouse keeper is the custodian of warehoused goods under Chapter IX of the Customs Act, 1962, and that proceeds from auction sales should be appropriated as per section 150. The court also supported the quantification of customs duty using the cum-duty method and held that interest on customs duty does not take precedence over warehouse charges. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing statutory interpretation principles. en-us Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Feb 2021 14:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401241 The court ruled in favor of the respondent on all substantial questions of law, upholding the Tribunal's decision. It affirmed that the warehouse keeper is the custodian of warehoused goods under Chapter IX of the Customs Act, 1962, and that proceeds from auction sales should be appropriated as per section 150. The court also supported the quantification of customs duty using the cum-duty method and held that interest on customs duty does not take precedence over warehouse charges. The appeal was dismissed, emphasizing statutory interpretation principles. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401241