Skip to content

Filter by :

Search Results Judgments > Act:CUSTOMS ACT 1962 Section 24 Year:1965

Dec 09 1965

Seth Durgaprasad etc. Vs. H.R. Gomes

  • Decided on : 09-Dec-1965

Court : Supreme

Reported in : 1983(13)ELT1501(SC)

... 24, 1963 issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Raipur to the Superintendent of Central Excise at Nagpur under s. 105 of the Customs Act which reads as follows : 'Shri H. R. Gomes, Superintendent (Prev.) H. Qrs., Central Excise, Nagpur. Whereas information has been laid before me of the suspected commission of the offence under section 11 read with section 111 of the Customs Act 1962 (52 of 1962 ... Sections 105 and 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter called the 'Customs Act'). 2. Civil Appeal No. 678 of 1965 : This appeal arises out of Special Civil Application no. 490 of 1963 which relates to the search and seizure of the premises of Sri Durga Prasad on August 19, 1963 and August 20, 1963. The authorisation was granted by the 1st respondent - Assistant Collector of Customs ... 1963. In addition, I also found documents indicating that the petitioner had resorted to dealings constituting breach of the Customs Regulations and the Regulations under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act punishable under the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and/or the Customs Act, 1962., The documents, note-books and files which I came across also indicated that the petitioner had resorted to ... The State of Punjab [1962] 1 S.C.R. 364.. In that case, the question debated was whether the presumption under s. 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 - Section 178 would arise in respect of an article which was originally seized by the police and handed over to the authorities of the Customs Department and was actually ...

Mar 19 1965

Ishwara Bhau Sawant Vs. Pandurang Vasudeo Karmarkar

  • Decided on : 19-Mar-1965

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1965)67BOMLR558; 1965MhLJ893

... Act was repealed by the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947. This new Act came into force on May 27, 1947, about six months after Sections 2A and 3A of the Tenancy Act of 1939 had been inserted in that Act. The provisions of Section 24 of the Agricultural Debtors Relief Act of 1947 are similar to those of Section 45 of the old Act. Clause (v) in Sub-section (2) of Section ... the Bombay Agricultural Debtors Belief Act. The first Agricultural Debtors Relief Act was enacted in 1939 about the same time when the Tenancy Act of 1939 was placed on the statute book. Section 45 of this Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in any law, custom or contract, the Board ... usually be construed as being limited to the actual objects of the Act; See Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 1962 edn., pp. 78-79. If, therefore, it is possible, we must so construe Section 2A as to avoid repugnancy and as not to make ineffective the general ... Supreme Court in Dahya Lala v. Rasul (1962) 65 Bom. L.R. 328., where it has been observed (p. 330) :.Nor has the contention that the expression 'mortgagee in possession' (in Clause (c) of Section 4 of the Act of 1948) includes a tenant from such a ... Section 2A of the Act of 1939, there is no reason why a mortgagee should not also be so held. There is, however, a clear distinction between the position of a mortgagee and that of a tenant brought on the land by the mortgagee. This has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Dahya Lala v. Rasul (1962 ...

Oct 18 1965

Vasnatal Ranchhoddas Patel and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

  • Decided on : 18-Oct-1965

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1967Bom138; (1966)68BOMLR223; 1967CriLJ715

... as a seizure under section 178, which corresponds to section 110 of the new Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court further held that the transfer of the possession of the goods to the Customs Authorities by virtue of the provisions contained in section 180 of the Sea Customs Act did not constitute a fresh seizure or a seizure within the meaning of section 178-A of the Act so as to ... investigation in regard to these diamonds. A summons under section 108 of the Customs Act was served upon the appellant and his statement was also recorded.(2) On the following day, 24th July, 1964, the safe was opened. It was found to contain seven packets of diamonds and currency notes of the value of Rs. 24,055. All these articles were seized by the ... seize is conferred by the Act and that in the context it could be referred to as a seizure under section 178, which corresponds to section 110 of the new Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court further held that the transfer of the possession of the goods to the Customs Authorities by virtue of the provisions contained in section 180 of the Sea Customs Act did not constitute a fresh ... the new Customs Act, 1962. The Supreme Court further held that the transfer of the possession of the goods to the Customs Authorities by virtue of the provisions contained in section 180 of the Sea Customs Act did not constitute a fresh seizure or a seizure within the meaning of section 178-A of the Act so as to shift the burden of proof on the appellants. Under section 178 ...

Apr 30 1965

Seikh Md. Omer Vs. Collector of Customs

  • Decided on : 30-Apr-1965

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : AIR1966Cal237

... necessary for me to refer to Clause (d) of Section 111 and Section 126 (corresponding to Section 188 of the repealed Sea Customs Act) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, which read as follows :--'(Section 111 of the Customs Act). The following goods brought from a place ... 24. Since I hold that the mare 'Jury Maid' was not a pet animal to the petitioner, the animal does not fall within the exemption allowed in paragraph 4 of the Public Notice dated January 2, 1961 The petitioner, there fore, rendered himself liable to penal action under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act read with Section ... Section 188 of the repealed Sea Customs Act) of Customs Act, 1962 and Sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, which read as follows :--'(Section 111 of the Customs Act). The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation :--(a) * * * * (b) * * * * *(c) * * * *(d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian Customs ... Section 112 of Customs Act 1962. '10. On the above findings, the respondent Collector, by his order dated March 15, 1965, directed confiscation of the mare 'Jury Maid' under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 (2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act 1947, and further ordered imposition of a personal penalty of Rs. 5,000 upon the petitioner, under Section 112 of the Customs Act ...

Jul 26 1965

V.V. Iyer Vs. Jasjit Singh

  • Decided on : 26-Jul-1965

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1972)74BOMLR77

... . Desai of date March 29, 1962, dismissing the appellants Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, wherein he had challenged the validity of the order dated May 25, 1960 made by the Collector of Customs, respondent (No. 1) hereto, imposing a penalty of Rs. 80,000 under the provisions of Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act against the firm of M ... Express Sprayers was arranged and seen in the godown of the firm at Chinchpokali at about 3 p.m. on September 24, 1958. At the demonstration, Mr. Iyer was present on behalf of the firm, and on behalf of the Customs Department were present - Mr. Lal, Assistant Collector, Shri Rangachari and Shri Patil of the Special Investigation Branch, and Shri Rekhi, the ... of the Sea Customs Act. It is not in dispute that the Customs authorities in deciding cases falling under Section 167 of the said Act are in duty bound to act in a quasi judicial manner. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sewpujanrai I. Ltd v. Collector of Customs : 1958CriLJ1355 , that the enquiry under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act is a ... in contravention of the Imports Control Order, 1955, and the firm thereby committed offence under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878. As the imported goods were not available for confiscation, the Collector imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 80,000 under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, and directed that the penalty should be paid forthwith. As regards the seized goods ...

Oct 28 1965

Khan Bahadur Chowakkaran Keloth Mammad Keyi Vs. Wealth Tax Officer, Ca ...

  • Decided on : 28-Oct-1965

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1966Ker77; [1966]60ITR737(Ker)

... to found a reasonable classification.52. In Southern Roadways (Private) Ltd. v. Union of India, : [1962]44ITR708(SC) , the Supreme Court had to consider the validity of the proviso to Section 10 (2) (vi) (b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (added by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act 1960). The said proviso read :--' Provided further that no allowance under this clause shall be ... property and this admixture at times gives rise to certain curious problems, by no means, easy of solution.'The learned author has further pointed out the development of certain peculiar customs among Mappilas governed by Marumakkathayam law on account of the recognition of the Marumakkathayam rule of inheritance and at the same time of the Muhamedan rule as to marriage. It ... in the country and that the State has thereby denied equal protection of the law to the former. The provisions in the Act relating to Hindu undivided families are severable and to that extent the Act has to be struck down.'24. Wealth Tax Officer v. Thuppan Namboodiripad, Civil Appeals 262 to 266 of 1963 (SC) were preferred to the Supreme Court against ... of severance of status laid down in decisions rendered under the Madras Marumakkathayam Act, 1932, to Moplah tarwads and observed:'We have carefully considered the material sections of both the Acts, namely, Section 38, 39 and 40 of the Marumakkathayam Act of 1933 and Section 13, 14 and 17 of the Moplah Marumakkathayam Act, 1939 and we see no such difference in language as would justify ...

Sep 28 1965

A.S. Bava Vs. Collector of Customs and Ors.

  • Decided on : 28-Sep-1965

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1966Ker195

... is Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and not Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. It is to be noticed that Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 provides for appeals in unqualified terms without any limitation or requirement of deposit of duty prior to, or during the pendency of the appeal Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962, ... Act.'' 16. The question before us is not whether a right of appeal conferred in unqualified terms by Section 35 of the Central Excises and Salt Act can be alienated by a statutory rule such as Rule 215 above. We express no opinion on the point. We may observe that rule 215 was deleted by notification of the Government of India dated 24 ... /59 to be referred to, later. The Sea Customs Act, 1878, was repealed by Customs Act 1962, and there is no controversy before us that in view of the said repeal reference to the repealed Act, in Section 12 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, should be understood as reference to the Customs Act of 1969.6. The Customs Act of 1962 came into force on 1-2-1968, and ... Customs Act 1878 (or the Customs Act, 1962) regarding the procedure relating to appeals and the provision for deposit of duly before filing the appeal, is not a matter relating to procedure: (2) that the provision regarding the deposit of duty, applicable if at all, is Section 189 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and not Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. It is to be noticed that Section ...

Aug 27 1965

Khan Bahadur C.B. Taraporwala and Anr. Vs. Kazim Ali Pasha and Ors.

  • Decided on : 27-Aug-1965

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1966AP361

... according to law and custom to the Gaddi of the State and to the personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of His Exalted Highness the Nizam of Hyderabad. The relevant personal privilege as it existed before 16-8-1947 depends on Section 86, C. P. C. prior to its amendment by Act II of 1951 ... only by defendants 2 to 4, 10, 39, 47, 94 and 98. A receiver for the suit properties was appointed by this Court on 24-8-1962 and a preliminary decree for partition was made on 28-6-1963. Under the preliminary decree, each of the sharers was given a specified share ... sale contracts are severable in this respect and cannot be said to be altogether void merely because they included agricultural lands.24. The learned counsel has called in aid Section 23 of the Contract Act which declares :'The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless : It is forbidden by law; or is ... it.23. In his reply affidavit, defendant No. 24 has taken an additional point that the sale includes agricultural lands and is therefore void. This ground of attack has reference to Section 47 (1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) which provides that no permanent ... : Indrajit-singhji v. Rajendrasinghji, AIR 1956 Bom 45 (47) and Usmanali Khan v. Sagarmal, AIR 1962 Madh Pra 320 (327). For the reasons already staled. I am of opinion that the privilege conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 86. C. P. C. cannot be waived.13. There is however more force in Sri ...

Jul 27 1965

M.G. Abrol Vs. Shantilal Chhotalal and Co.

  • Decided on : 27-Jul-1965

Court : Supreme

Reported in : AIR1966SC197; [1966]1SCR284

... upon land or water, or within the Indian customs waters, by any officer of customs or other person duly employed for the prevention of smuggling'.9. Is there any conflict between the two jurisdictions, i.e., the jurisdiction of the licensing authority under the Exports (Control) Order and that of the Customs Authority under the Sea Customs Act? While under the Exports (Control) Order certain ... contrary to the prohibition or restriction imposed by the Central Government. Section 178 of the Act empowers any officer of Customs to seize in any place in India either upon land or water, or within the Indian Customs waters, anything liable to confiscation under the Act. It is clear therefore that the officers of Customs have power to seize steel scrap if it be liable to ... for satisfying themselves that it is being exported under and in accordance with the licence issued by the proper authority. Such a right of the Customs Authorities under the Act is not seriously disputed for the respondent.24. What is really contended for the respondent and what has been held by the High Court is that the decision given by the Iron & Steel ... . (1) applies shall be deemed to be goods of which the import or export has been prohibited or restricted under s. 19 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, hereinafter called the Act, and that all the provisions of that Act shall have effect accordingly.21. By virtue of the power conferred by sub-s. (1) of s. 3, the Central Government issued the Exports ...

Mar 29 1965

The Union Bank of India Ltd. Vs. M. Pachappa

  • Decided on : 29-Mar-1965

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1967)69BOMLR782

... the Customs authorities.4. In the meantime, the Customs authorities had sent on October 3, 1962, a show cause memorandum to the Paramount Steel Industries, Varanasi, calling upon the latter to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them under Section 167(5) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, ... that the order was passed behind its back and without giving it any hearing. ;6. Respondent No. 1, the Additional Collector of Customs, stated in his affidavit in reply that on or about July 24, 1962, the Bombay Customs House had received information that the said import licence of Messrs. Paramount Steel Industries, Varanasi, was 'fraudulently obtained'. Respondent No. ... Customs authorities had sent on October 3, 1962, a show cause memorandum to the Paramount Steel Industries, Varanasi, calling upon the latter to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them under Section 167(5) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with Section 3(2) of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. It was stated in the memorandum that the Customs ... customers of the Bank. No reply to this letter was sent by the Customs authorities.4. In the meantime, the Customs authorities had sent on October 3, 1962, a show cause memorandum to the Paramount Steel Industries, Varanasi, calling upon the latter to show cause why penal action should not be taken against them under Section 167(5) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, read with Section ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //