Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Milan Metals India, Proprietorship Firm, Represented By Its Proprietor Mr. Jayesh Bhansali, S/o. Mr. Babulal Bhansali – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India, Through Its Secretary Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. detention of goods due to classification issue (Para 3) |
| 2. arguments on procedural compliance for goods detention (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal principles on seizure and hearings (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. conditions for release of detained goods (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. conclusion allowing partial writ petition for goods release (Para 12) |
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:
“a. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold and declare:
i. that the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have failed to exercise the powers conferred upon them by the CUSTOMS ACT , 1962 as well as the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, in deciding the Petitioner's Applications for Warehousing and Re-export, (Annexures 'D' and Annexure 'E' hereto), respectively is bad in law;
ii. that the Petitioner's goods covered under Bills of Entry as listed in Table - I herein in paragraph 6 are illegally detained since no seizure memo has been issued till date;
b. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing Respondents, their servants, subordinates, and agents:
i
The Customs Act mandates timely completion of investigations regarding detained goods, ensuring procedural compliance with notice requirements under Sections 110 and 124 to avoid unlawful detention.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a claim for waiver of demurrage and detention charges must be made within the specified time frame, and the maximum waiver period is limited b....
The judgment emphasizes the procedural requirements for seizure, provisional release, and adjudication of goods under the Customs Act, as well as the liability for demurrage and detention charges.
The court emphasized the need to consider the petitioner's hardship and lack of involvement in the tampering and removal of goods when modifying the provisional release order for the seized vehicle.
A printed waiver of a Show Cause Notice does not satisfy the requirement for a conscious and informed waiver, violating principles of natural justice.
Timely issuance of show cause notice is mandatory under the Customs Act, and non-compliance results in the automatic return of the seized goods.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
