9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Compliance with court order for release of goods. 2. Alleged seizure of goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Dispute over payment of customs duty and warehousing charges. Analysis: Compliance with Court Order for Release of Goods: The petitioner had moved a writ application seeking the release of goods from a bonded warehouse, as directed by a court order dated 18th June, 1987. However, despite the court order, the petitioner failed to pay the admitted amount of customs duty as directed. The court noted that the petitioner did not comply with the requirements of the order before demanding delivery of the goods. Consequently, the court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the goods' release without fulfilling the conditions specified in the court order. Alleged Seizure of Goods under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962: The petitioner alleged that the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the respondents denied the existence of any such seizure order. The court observed that the endorsement in the stock register, indicating 'not to be delivered without the knowledge of S.I.B.,' did not amount to a seizure of goods but was a precautionary measure. The court emphasized that the endorsement lost its force after the court order of 18th June, 1987, was passed. Therefore, the court dismissed the petitioner's claim of seizure and reiterated that compliance with the court order was essential for the release of goods. Dispute Over Payment of Customs Duty and Warehousing Charges: The court highlighted that the petitioner had not paid the customs duty or complied with the terms of the court order dated 18th June, 1987, even after a significant period. As a result, the petitioner was deemed ineligible to claim the goods' release from the warehouse. The court emphasized that it was the petitioner's responsibility to pay the customs duty and fulfill the conditions of the court order before seeking the goods' release. Additionally, the court noted that the Warehousing Corporation was entitled to demand payment for its services, which the petitioner did not dispute during the proceedings. Therefore, the court dismissed the application and did not pass any order against the Customs authorities regarding the payment of warehousing charges. In conclusion, the court dismissed the application, emphasizing the petitioner's failure to comply with the court order and fulfill the necessary requirements for the release of goods. The court clarified that its decision did not affect any other disputes between the parties in a related matter.
|
