Back
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, PARTHA SARTHY
Raj Kumar Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ.—The petitioners in the above writ application are aggrieved with the seizure of goods and the adjudication order passed, bearing No. 64-Cus/JC/Denovo/FBG/2014 dated 13.03.2015, produced at Annexure-11.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the reason for seizure or detention was not the ground on which the adjudication proceedings were initiated; which vitiates the seizure. Section 100 of the Customs Act, 1962 requires ‘reasons to believe’ for making seizure of goods. In the present case, the seizure was made purportedly for violation of provisions of Notification No. 9/96 (N.T)-Cus dated 22.01.1996, issued under Section 11 of the Customs Act. The notification was with respect to import of goods into India from Nepal; goods which have been imported into Nepal from other countries. However, the show-cause notice and the adjudication order proceeded on the basis that there was illegal export attempted by the petitioners. The goods seized was sugar which has not been notified under Section 11 of the Act. Further, the petitioners had specifically sought for cross-examination of the officer who made the seizure, which request though recorded in th
The court emphasized that interference at the stage of issuance of show cause notice should be rare and not in a routine manner, and the availability of alternative remedy should be considered before....
The court validated the customs authority's seizure of goods based on reasonable suspicion, upholding the impossibility of judicial review on the sufficiency of the officer's reasons.
A writ petition challenging seizure under the Customs Act may be considered non-maintainable if a related and previously adjudicated matter on jurisdictional grounds remains unresolved.
Order of Detention and seizure quashed - Absence of any proper opportunity to petitioner also, the civil liabilities of petitioner company demanding the huge amount of custom duty would be impermissi....
The court established that jurisdiction for customs seizures is determined by statutory notifications, and reasonable belief is sufficient for seizure under the Customs Act.
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
