Customs Failed To Quantify Duty, Can't Blame Traveller For Delay In Redeeming Gold: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that a passenger cannot be faulted for failing to redeem confiscated gold within the stipulated period when the Customs Department itself failed to quantify and communicate the applicable duty, despite receiving his request within time.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Vimal Kumar Yadav accordingly directed the Customs authorities to communicate the duty payable on 12 gold bars weighing 1,200 grams and release the gold upon payment of the duty,...

No Customs Interest On Capital Goods Kept In Bonded Warehouse Until Clearance: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the setting aside of a ₹2.88-crore customs interest demand on solar modules imported by Acme Aklera Power Technology Pvt. Ltd. It held that interest under Section 61(2) of the Customs Act cannot be charged on capital goods covered by Section 61(1)(a). A Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar held that such capital goods can remain in a warehouse until clearance if they are intended for use in a warehouse where manufacture or...

Customs Department Must Hear Account Holder Before Extending Bank Account Attachment: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has recently ruled that a person whose bank account has been provisionally attached under the Customs Act must be given an opportunity of hearing before the attachment is extended. A hearing offered after the extension has already been ordered cannot cure the defect, the court held.A Division Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sunil Dutta Mishra made the ruling while allowing a writ petition filed by Nxtify Technologies Private Limited to the extent indicated...

CBIC Circular Cannot Override Provisional Release Of Seized Goods Under Customs Act: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has held that Customs authorities cannot deny provisional release of seized goods merely because an executive instruction places such goods outside the scope of provisional release. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that CBIC Circular No. 35/2017-Cus. dated 16.08.2017 cannot dilute the scope of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962, by prohibiting provisional release of goods notified under Section 123 of the Act. ...

Even Peripheral Question On Customs Duty Rate Can Take CESTAT Appeal To Supreme Court: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that even a peripheral question touching the rate of customs duty can fall outside the High Court's appellate jurisdiction. Such an appeal would lie directly before the Supreme Court under Section 130E of the Customs Act, 1962.A Division Bench of Justice B.P. Colabawalla and Justice Farhan P. Dubash dismissed the Revenue's appeals against a CESTAT Mumbai order in favour of J M Baxi & Co. and others. The dispute concerned duty exemption on “stores” imported for...

Gold Imported In Violation Of Restrictions Is 'Prohibited Goods' Under Customs Act: Calcutta High Court

On Thursday, 10 September, the Calcutta High Court held that gold imported into India in violation of applicable import restrictions can be treated as “prohibited goods” under Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962, even though gold is not absolutely prohibited from being imported into the country. A Division Bench comprising Justices Debangsu Basak and Aryak Dutt allowed the Customs Department's appeals and dismissed the appeals filed by Gopal Saha and Ajgar Seikh, setting aside the Single...

Telangana High Court Upholds Gimpex's Target Plus Duty Exemption, Says Broad Nexus Sufficient

The Telangana High Court on 11 August upheld the relief granted to Gimpex Limited, holding that the extended period of limitation could not be invoked in the absence of material showing fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts with an intent to evade duty. A Division Bench comprising Justices P. Sam Koshy and Narsing Rao Nandikonda observed that a strict product-to-product nexus between imported and exported goods was not required to claim duty exemption under the Target Plus Scheme....

Delhi High Court Declines Unconditional Release Of Gold, Cites Dispute Over Oral Show-Cause Notice

The Delhi High Court has refused to direct the unconditional release of 290 grams of gold seized from a passenger at Delhi airport, holding that the absence of a written show-cause notice by itself could not warrant release when the Customs Department specifically claimed that an oral show-cause notice had been issued on the date of seizure.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain was dealing with a petition filed by Awesh Karmi Fundreimayum seeking release of eight gold...

Customs Adjudication Limitation Clock Restarts After Interim Stay Ends: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has held that where a pending court proceeding and an interim order prevent customs authorities from proceeding with adjudication, the limitation period prescribed under Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962, is to be reckoned from the date on which the circumstance contemplated under Section 28(9A) ceases to exist.The Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Shail Jain made the observation while dismissing a petition challenging a customs adjudication order that...

Section 123 Customs Act Needs Traceable Proof Of Lawfully Acquiring Seized Goods: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on 3 September held that an owner of seized goods does not discharge the burden under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 merely by producing documents relating to his business generally, and must instead produce documents that specifically and traceably establish lawful acquisition of the seized goods. A Division Bench comprising Justices Shekhar B. Saraf and Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held that the burden shifted to the owner after the revenue satisfied the conditions...

Customs Must Establish Foreign Origin Before Presuming Goods Were Smuggled: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow has recently held that the burden of proof under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, does not shift to the person from whom goods are seized unless the customs authorities first establish that the goods are of foreign origin and were smuggled into India. it held that where nothing on the record connects the goods to smuggling, the presumption cannot be pressed into service at all. The Court applied the rule to silver bullion and to Indian...

Madras High Court Directs Provisional Release Of Imported Equipment, Rejects Reliance On Later Amendment

The Madras High Court has directed Customs authorities to consider the provisional release of consignments of second-hand highly specialised equipment.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar held that a later amendment to the applicable exemption notification could not be relied upon to deny release of goods covered by Bills of Lading issued before the amendment came into force.The petitioner had imported second-hand highly specialised equipment, namely digital multifunction print and copying...