Delhi High Court To Examine Scope Of Customs Jurisdiction Under E-Cigarettes Act After Seizure Of "De-Addiction" Devices

The Delhi High Court is set to examine the extent of jurisdiction which can be exercised by the Customs Department under the Prohibition of Electronic Cigarettes (Production, Manufacture, Import, Transport, Sale, Distribution, Storage and Advertisement) Act, 2019.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta have sought the authority's response on a private company's petition challenging seizure of its imported “empty atomizer devices” purportedly to be put to use for...

Customs Dept Repeatedly Told To Serve Notices, Orders On Assessee Via Email: Delhi High Court Seeks Compliance

The Delhi High Court has asked the Customs Department to scrupulously comply with its “repeated” direction to serve notices, orders on an assessee under the Customs Act, 1962 via email.Traditionally, correspondence related to any violation of the Act is made via post. However, with advent of technology and to avoid delays, Court had in Bonanza Enterprises vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs & Anr. (2024) called upon the Department to send notices via email, in addition to service by...

Delhi High Court Orders Customs Department To Release Arab Minor's Jewellery Which She Wore Since Childhood

The Delhi High Court has ordered the Customs Department to release the personal jewellery of a minor from UAE who had come to India to attend a relative's wedding.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta passed the direction after perusing a photograph, depicting that she used to wear the said pieces of jewelry since childhood. It observed,“This Court has now pronounced several orders/judgments, following various judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court,...

'Cannot Be Forced To Repeatedly Approach Court': Delhi HC Orders Release Of Iran National's Jewellery Confiscated By Customs Almost 3 Yrs Ago

The Delhi High Court ordered the Customs Department to release the silver-coated gold chains of an Iranian national, which were confiscated on his arrival in India almost three years ago.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta noted that the prescribed period of six months for issuance of a Show Cause Notice had already elapsed.Further, no personal hearing was granted to the Petitioner, who sought the release of his jewelry, and no final order was served on him...

Subsequent Notice U/S 28(4) Customs Act Cannot Be 'Supplementary' To Prior Notice U/S 28(1), Both Provisions Operate In Separate Fields: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that notices under Section 28(1) and Section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 operate in different scenarios and even by an exaggerated stretch, cannot possibly be said to be interchangeably issued.Section 28 relates to recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short-levied or short-paid or erroneously refunded. It provides for two separate types of notices: One under Section 28(4) where elements of collusion, wilful mis-statement and suppression are made out in...

S.28(4) Customs Act | Genuine Disagreement With Department Regarding Classification Of Goods Not 'Suppression Of Facts' By Trader: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that merely because there is disagreement between the Customs department and a trader regarding the classification of the latter's goods for the purpose of levying duty, it does not mean that the trader has indulged in 'suppression of facts' from the Department.The expression is relevant in terms of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for the recovery of duty not paid or short paid where elements of collusion, wilful misstatement and suppression...

S.67 Of CGST Act & S.110 Of Customs Act Are Pari Materia; GST Department Must Give Notice To Assessee Before Extending Seizure Period: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that an assessee must be issued notice within six months of seizure of its goods under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017, failing which the goods must be returned by the Department.A division bench of Justices Yashwant Varma and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further held that the period of seizure cannot be extended under Section 67)7) for a further six-month period without giving notice to the accused.This, as the Court found the provision to...

'Highly Undesirable Practice, Wastes Judicial Time': Delhi High Court Laments Frequent Non-Appearance Of Govt Counsel In Customs Matters

The Delhi High Court recently expressed its displeasure at the frequent non-appearance of government counsel in customs related matters.A division bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Rajneesh Kumar Gupta observed, “It is noticed that in a large number of customs matters, the Counsels are either not appearing or appear without proper instructions. In cases of nonappearance, the Court is compelled to request Standing Counsels present in Court to accept notice. This reflects a clear...

'Extra Duty Deposit' Different From Customs Duty, Limitation For Seeking Refund U/S 27 Of Customs Act Is Inapplicable: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that an Extra Duty Deposit (EDD) does not constitute a payment in the nature of customs duty under the scope of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus, the period of limitation for seeking a refund of customs duty under the provision would not apply qua EDD.Section 27 deals with a person/entity's claim for a refund of Customs duty in certain circumstances.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma observed, “A perusal of Section 27...

Customs Department's Baggage Rules Have 'Limited Application' On Foreign Tourists: Delhi HC Orders Release Of Russian National's Gold Chain

The Delhi High Court has held that the Baggage Rules 2016 which are framed under the Customs Act 1962 to ensure that every passenger entering India passes through a Customs check has limited application on foreign tourists coming to India.While holding so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma ordered the release of a Russian national's gold chain, valued at about Rs. 7 lakhs, which was confiscated by the Customs Department when he arrived in India.It observed, “It...

Delhi HC Grants Relief To Foreigner Whose Rolex Watch Was Seized By Customs, Says Waiver Of Show Cause & Hearing In 'Standard Form' Not Lawful

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that authorities making a traveller waive show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, on a mere proforma, is not lawful.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus granted relief to a permanent resident of Hong Kong, whose Rolex wristwatch valued at ₹30,29,400/- was confiscated by the Customs Department at the airport.It observed, “This is another case where the Department is...

Customs Department Must Intimate Party About Disposal Of Confiscated Property Both Via Email And On Mobile: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department must ensure that the intimation of disposal of detained or confiscated property is given to the concerned party both via email as also the mobile number.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma reasoned this will ensure that a party who succeeded in Court or Tribunal against the detention of the property is not deprived of their properties.The observation was made while dealing with a case where despite the order...