Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: customs act 1962 Court: delhi Year: 1988 Page 1 of about 454 results (0.145 seconds)

Sep 06 1988 (HC)

Narinder Kumar Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-06-1988

Reported in : 36(1988)DLT340

..... that the detaining authority has relied on the petitioner's statement dated the 4th february, 1988, recorded under section 108 of the customs act, 1962. (2) the petitioner alleges that vide letter of the 10th february, 1988 addressed to the chairman, customs and central excise, government of india, ministry of finance, new delhi and copies endorsed to the secretary ministry of finance, ..... central excise, chandigarh to have placed the petitioner's representation dated the 10th february, 1988. whereby he had retracted the earlier statement made under section 108 of the customs act, before the detaining authority. mr, bagai has taken us through the grounds of detention and also the list of documents relied upon by the detaining authority. in the ..... .because of the retraction made by the petitioner vide his detailed complaint-cum-representation dated 10.2.88 sent to the sponsoring authority, respondent no. 1 and the chairman, customs and central excise was also withheld from the detaining authority. the withholding of this retraction also vitiates the detention order.'mr. bagai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it ..... government of india, new delhi and to the collector of customs and central excise, chandigarh, he had retracted that statement. this averment is contained in paragraph 6 of the petition. the letter dated the 10th february. 1988 has been annexed .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 1988 (HC)

Duncan Agro Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-11-1988

Reported in : 1988(18)ECC358; 1988(19)LC131(Delhi); 1989(39)ELT211(Del)

..... rewards to informers and government servants in case of seizure made, infringement or evasion of duty etc. detected under the provisions of the customs act, 1962, the central excises and salt act, 1944, the gold (control) act, 1968 and the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973. as a result of the review, revised guidelines were laid down in the memorandum dated march 30, 1985 issued by ministry ..... application of section 6 of the sea customs act, officers of the land customs act were treated as customs officers having jurisdiction under section 6 appointing land customs officers to be officers of customs for their respective jurisdiction and to exercise the powers conferred and to perform the duties imposed on such officers by the sea customs act. section 6 of the customs act, 1962 now makes provision for entrustment of functions ..... on any officer of the central government and the state government. section 5 of foreign exchange regulation act, 1947 as well as of 1973 similarly make provisions for entrustment of functions. our attention has .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 23 1988 (HC)

B.C. Mody Export Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-23-1988

Reported in : 35(1988)DLT18; 1988(17)ECC250; 1988(36)ELT475(Del)

..... a writ petition brought under article 226 of the constitution of india seeking to quash order dated april 12, 1979, made by the respondent under section iii(d) of the customs act, 1962. 2. the facts, in brief, are that petitioner no. 1 is eligible export house and holds an eligibility certificate for products of the following group : (a) engineering goods : (b) chemicals ..... transferred in the name of the petitioners under sub-clause 5(3)(i) of the imports (control) order, 1955. the collector of customs, bombay, served show cause notices in respect of these eight consignments under section 124 of the customs act, 1962, objecting to the import of these products on the basis of the aforesaid licenses on the ground that those licenses did not ..... cover the imported products. the goods were confiscated under section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962 read with section 3 of the imports & exports (control) act, 1947, subject to redemption on payment of fine. the collector of customs, bombay, also imposed on the petitioners penalties under section 112 of the customs act, the detail of which are furnished in para 5 of the petition. the appeals ..... those appeals came to be rejected. the petitioners then filed revision petitions to the government of india under section 131 of the customs act, 1962. the revision petitions were only partly allowed inasmuch as redemption fine was reduced to about 50% and penalties imposed were set aside. 4. according to the petitioners, public notice dated .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 16 1988 (HC)

indru Ramchand Bharvani and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-16-1988

Reported in : 36(1988)DLT63; 1988(17)ECC233; 1988(18)LC18(Delhi); 1988(38)ELT459(Del)

..... of the circumstances in the background of the secret information the officer had received, the customs officer in charge of the search party formed the reasonable belief under section 110 read with section 123 of the customs act 1962 (the act) that the unaccounted diamonds etc were smuggled goods. the customs officer seized various goods including cut and polished diamonds and rough diamonds in all valued ..... at rs. 54,42,882.02 under section 110 of the act in the reasonable belief that the goods had been smuggled into india ..... were smuggled goods and hence the seizure itself was bad in law and, thereforee, the provisions of section 123 of the act cannot be applied and it is for the customs department to prove that the diamonds were smuggled. the customs department having failed to prove that the seized diamonds were smuggled the impugned order cannot be sustained and (2) assuming that ..... . the customs officer also seized indian currency of rs. 1.40 laksh. certain incriminating documents found in the premises were also seized. in this .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 19 1988 (HC)

Lachhman Singh Vs. Mahinder Singh and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-19-1988

Reported in : 37(1989)DLT241

..... complainant shri lachhman singh. inspector filed by him for the central excise & customs, being an inspector of that department for the offence under sec. 135(1)(a) of the customs act 1962 and section 5 of the imports and exports (control) act, 1947 for the three accused respondents being concerned in an attempt at fraudulent ..... to be given to the accused. so far as the present case is concerned the main offence is under section 135(1)(a) of the customs act, which is a non-cognizable offence. further no investigation was conducted by the police in the case, nor was statement of any witness recorded under ..... exercised on sound judicious principles. in the present case the complainant is a public servant. his case is that be was posted at rohtak as inspector, customs in may, 1987. may 13, 1987, which was the date fixed in the case, happened to be a gazetted holiday in all government offices on ..... on 5th december, 1972. in a.n. lewis (supra) it was held that the offence committed under section 5 of the imports & exports (control) act, 1947 being strictly prohibited from being taken cognizance of by a court, except on a complaint in writing made by an officer authorised in that behalf by the ..... case in which the police had investigated the case of the commission of a cognizable offence, namely under section 5 of the imports & exports (control) act, 1947. though the offence was a cognizable one, cognizance could not be taken by the court except on a complaint by the specified authority. it .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 06 1988 (HC)

Kailasho Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-06-1988

Reported in : 36(1988)DLT178

..... on the statement made by her on the 4th february, 1988, wherein it is alleged that she had admitted her guilt. that statement was recorded under section 108 of the customs act, 1962. (2) the further reliance in the grounds is on the inculpatory statement made by her co-detent narinder kumar, which statement was also recorded on 4th february, 1988. (3) it ..... of customs and central excise, chandigarh, the sponsoring authority. the plea urged by the petitioner in ground 'c' of the petition is that the retraction statement of narinder kumar being a very ..... is averred in paragraph 4 of the petition that narinder kumar, the co-detent retracted his statement by writing a complaint to the chairman, customs and central excise, government of india on 10th february, 1988. the copies of this complaint were sent to the secretary, ministry of finance, government of india, new delhi and collector .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 25 1988 (HC)

Parmeshwar Lal Karel and Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-25-1988

Reported in : 1988(2)Crimes616; 35(1988)DLT416

..... three said persons i.e. sushil kumar aggarwal, shyam sunder agarwal and parmeshwar lal karel under section 104 of the customs act, 1962, they were produced before the chief judicial magistrate on 26th march, 1987. we do not think that the arrest memorandums under section 104 of ..... karel (petitioner in criminal writ no. 3 of 1988) made a statement on 26th march. 1987 before the customs officers in response to the summons issued to him under section 108 of the customs act, 1962, wherein he admitted that he had accompanied his friends, that is sushil kumar aggarwal and shyam sunder agarwal, ..... a detailed statement under section 108 of the customs act before the customs officers wherein he admitted the recovery of gold from his possession. he further disclosed that during the second week of march 1987 he had ..... of the same at calcutta he was to share the profit.(10) the petitioners herein and shyam sunder aggarwal were arrested under section 104 of the customs act and were produced before the judicial magistrate, north, 23 paraganas, calcutta, on 26th march, 1987, who remanded them to judicial custody till 10th april ..... of the watches was the same as adopted by sushil kumar aggarwal and shyam sunder aggarwal. the goods were seized under the provisions of the customs act. the inventory of the goods and the documents seized was handed over to this petitioner.(8) on 25th march, 1987 sushil kumar aggarwal made .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 21 1988 (HC)

Erukulangara Kunhumohamed Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-21-1988

Reported in : 1989(2)Crimes694; 37(1989)DLT292

..... finding it to be a case where gold had been smuggled into india in the shape of biscuits and coins stealthily and surreptitiously in violation of the provisions contained in customs act, 1962 and thus liable for confiscation to the government, the same was seized under a mabazar duly prepared and the aforesaid thiruthy mohamed kutty was taken into custody along with other ..... sent by kammu to the petitioner containing instructions in the manner stated to have been revealed by kutty or the petitioner , in their respective statements under section 108 of the customs act. the reason which are summed up at the end, in the grounds of detention, as leading to the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, that it was necessary to ..... other four documents and photographs which were seriallly numbered 'i' to '5'. (3) on the same day, thiruthy mohamed kutty made statement to the authorities under section 108 of the customs act, revealing that he was employed at abu dhabi as a domestic servant in the house of a arab and that on arrival at trivendrum airport, his baggage was searched by ..... payments. this later allegation is based on the information furnished by the petitioner in bids statement under section 108 of the customs act which was retracted subsequently on 17th october, 1987 by means of a petition addressed to the collector of customs, cochin with a copy to the additional chief judicial magistrate (economic offences), ernakulam disclaiming every part thereof and further alleging .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 10 1988 (TRI)

Sriyansh Woollen Mills (Pvt.) Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : Oct-10-1988

Reported in : (1990)(46)ELT190TriDel

..... not used by the appellant. accordingly, we agree with his conclusions that the importation of polyester fibre was unauthorised and liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962. during the course of arguments, shri harbans singh, the learned advocate for the appellants had mentioned that the importation was made in the year 1985 and the appellant is ..... . in view of this discussion, we hold that the appellants are liable to penalty under section 112. the adjudicating authority has invoked the provisions of section 111(f) of the customs act, 1962.section 111(f) is reproduced below:- "111. confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - the following goods brought from a place outside india shall be liable to confiscation: (f ..... separate package; that those 21 packages had been found to contain goods as per suppliers' documents and the same were not liable to confiscation under section 118 of the customs act, 1962; that it appeared that the suppliers had attempted to cheat the appellant by supplying partly cheaper stuff than that indented; that oh suspicion the suppliers might have sent goods ..... camouflage to cover the unauthorised import of polyester fibre, collectively valued at rs. 2,03,232/- (market value) are also liable to confiscation under section 118 of the customs act, 1962.it appeared that shri ajeet kumar knew and had reasons to believe that besides the wool waste, viscose staple fibre, the containers under import contained bales 6f polyester fibre which .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 20 1988 (TRI)

Singh Radio and Electronics Vs. Collector of Customs

Court : Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Decided on : May-20-1988

Reported in : (1988)(18)LC80Tri(Delhi)

..... parts" against import licence no. p/s/1934128 dated 17-8-1982 and p/w/0356055 dated 29-7-1982 and were seized under section 110 of the customs act, 1962 by the collector of customs, new delhi. on the basis of invoice nos. bmer 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 all dated 6-9-1983 issued by m/s.nagono co. ltd., tokyo the ..... pkgs. had not been opened in view of the oral admission by the appellants that they also contain the same items.the packages were seized under section 110 of the customs act, 1962. it was also discovered that the appellants had cleared another consignment from bombay vide bill of lading no. f. 3/31-8-1983 containing besides other components of radio cassette ..... the part of the appellants. the same should have been done within six months under section 28 or within one year under section 129d of the customs act, 1962 and as such the order passed by the delhi customs is void. (ii) the values declared by the appellants were correct. there was no middleman. the appellants had imported 2000 pieces, and in support of ..... .2. shri m. ganeshan, the learned advocate who has appeared on behalf of the appellants has raised the following points :- (i) the collector of customs, delhi had no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 110 of the customs act, 1962 for 868 packages cleared at bombay vide bill of lading no. f.3/31-8-1983 (import department serial no. 3030, dated november, 83 .....

Tag this Judgment!


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