Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: customs act 1962 Court: delhi Year: 2002 Page 1 of about 922 results (0.109 seconds)

Aug 26 2002 (HC)

Anil Jindal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Aug-26-2002

Reported in : 100(2002)DLT398

..... suspicion.' 15. in the present case also grounds of detention do not indicate that the petitioner actually exported goods which were liable to be confiscated under section 113 of the customs act, 1962 or attempting to export improperly the banned or the goods which were liable to be confiscated. thereforee, there is a clear variance in the order of detention and the ground ..... the case of the petitioner in the definition of 'smuggling' the authority had to prove that in relation to the goods liable to the confiscated under section 113 of the customs act, 1962, the petitioner was involved in the actual exporting of the goods. from the reading of the grounds of detention dated 7th november, 2001 we find that it is not the ..... goods liable to confiscation under section 111 or section 113; section 2(e) of the cofeposa 'smuggling' has the same meaning as in clause (3) of section 2 of the customs act, 1962 and all its grammatical variations and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly. 9. by virtue of section 2(e) of the cofeposa the provisions of section 2(39) of the ..... the involvement of m/s vikas trading corporation and m/s rahul traders. petitioner who is the proprietor of m/s rahul traders, his statement under section 108 of the customs act, 1962 was also recorded. he admitted having issued for bills of ramming mass amounting to rs. 1,51,20,000/- to m/s vikas trading corporation. he further stated that he .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 15 2002 (HC)

Tripta Sharma Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-15-2002

Reported in : 2002(145)ELT519(Del)

..... cal.). in this case it is observed that the party whose goods are seized must be heard before an order under section 110(2) of the customs act, 1962 extending the time for notice is issued. 21. there is no quarrel with the proposition of law which has been laid down in the aforesaid cases ..... time laid in section 110(2) and extension of the period has become necessary. the court observed that the powers under section 110 of the customs act, 1962 are not to be exercised without an opportunity of being heard given to the person from whom the goods were seized. 19. mr. rawal has ..... period of six months from the last date of issue of show cause notice under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 110 of the customs act 1962. 5. it is mentioned that because of continuous efforts the premises of m/s. s.y. international was finally identified. search was conducted on ..... under proper panchnama dated 17-11-2000. 4. summons under section 108 of the customs act, 1962 were issued to shekhar yadav on 20-4-2001 for his appearance on 24-4-2001 but nobody appeared for evidence. since the exporter could not ..... be as per description/quantity/quality and value as declared in the invoices/shipping bills, thereforee, the goods were seized under section 110 of the customs act, 1962, as the same appeared to be liable for confiscation. the officers also drew representative samples and resumed the shipping docu-ments. the proceedings were recorded .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 26 2002 (HC)

Mr. V.J.A. Flynn and Mr. Shyam Sunder Rastogi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Nov-26-2002

Reported in : 2003(66)DRJ381; 2003(86)ECC129; 2003(159)ELT92(Del)

..... there is no material or tangible information for forming of requisite belief, then only the court can interfere, otherwise not.'22. what is required under section 124 of the customs act, 1962 is that before confiscating any goods, a show cause notice in writing should be issued to the noticee informing him of the grounds on which the goods are proposed to ..... sufficient material to hold a prima facie belief that the coins were antiquities.7. to appreciate the controversy, the relevant provisions of the antiquities act and that of the customs act, 1962 need to be considered. the antiquities act regulate the export trade in antiquities and art treasure and provides for prevention of smuggling or fraudulent dealings in the antiquities. section 2(1)(a ..... cw.no. 1985/2001, filed shyam sunder rastogi, is to the validity of the show cause notice dated 2nd december, 1994, issued by the collector of customs under section 124 of the customs act, 1962, as to why the seized goods be not confiscated and personal penalty be not imposed on the petitioners. since both the writ petitions arise out of common ..... in relation to all antiquities, the export of which is prohibited under section 3 of the antiquities act. the collector of customs can, thereforee, confiscate the antiquities, export of which is prohibited under section 3 of the antiquities act.'4. application of act 52 of 1962. -- the customs act, 1962, shall have effect in relation to all antiquities and art treasures, the export of which by .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 11 2002 (HC)

Satya Prakash Bagla Vs. Sprint Services Pvt. Ltd. and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-11-2002

Reported in : 2002(142)ELT524(Del)

..... in possession of ssbl. the actual user condition has been violated. it has been further pleaded that plaintiff cannot claim any interest on the carsover-riding the provisions of the customs act, 1962. 6. during the pendency of the said suit the plaintiff by virtue of is 8280/2001 was seeking an ad interim injunction to restrain defendants 2 and 3, its servants ..... government to dispose of perishable or hazardous goods and inventory has to be prepared and matter can be dealt with in accordance withsub-section (1b) to section 110 of the customs act,1962. section 111 further deals with confiscation ofgoods. at this stage one need not go into further provisions about penalty for improper penalty of goods contemplated under the ..... . it was further pointed thatdefendants 2 and 3 that objections, if any, can be raised by the plaintiff before the authorities underthe customs act, 1962. 9. reference in this connection can well be made to the provisions of section 110 of the customs act which permits seizure of goods, documents and other articles. sub-section (1) to section 110 provides that if the proper officer ..... without serving any notice that the cars which were subjectmatter of pledge were required by them in connection with some custom duty evasion by defendant no. 1. the officers represented that vehicles were required to be seized under the provisions of customs act, 1962 and the vehicles were found parked int eh premises of the plaintiff. the grievance of the plaintiff is that his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 02 2002 (HC)

R.K. Goenka Vs. Collector of Customs and anr.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Sep-02-2002

Reported in : 2003CriLJ646; 100(2002)DLT420; 2003(152)ELT54(Del)

..... being smuggled. the entire amount of foreign currency was confiscated under section 113(d), (e) and (h) of the customs act 1962 (for short the 'act') and the personal penalty of rs. 3,00,000/- each was imposed on the three petitioners under section 114 of the ..... to confiscation under section 111 of the act. a show cause notice in respect of adjudication proceeding was issued ..... 3 and 4a of the imports and exports (control) act, 1947 which prohibitions by virtue of section 3 b ibid are deemed to have been imposed under section 11 of the customs act, 1962. accordingly, the entire goods were seized under section 110 of the act under the reasonable belief that the same were liable ..... cases where the petitioner had invoked its inherent power under section 482 of the cr. p.c. for quashing proceedings under section 132/135 of the customs act. in the case of s.k. sinha (supra) hon'ble malik sharief-ud-din, j. observed as under:-'a decision by the tribunal ..... question of consideration namely whether the prosecution launched by the department against the petitioners under section 132 and 135(1) (a) of the customs act and imports and exports (control) act, 1947 can/ should continue even after they have been exonerated by the department in adjudication proceedings.2. briefly narrated the facts leading .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 20 2002 (HC)

Container Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Marut Nandan Overseas Ltd. and ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-20-2002

Reported in : 2003(87)ECC36; 2003(156)ELT175(Del)

..... no. c.no.viii(icd)/6/adj/commr/33/2002/11103 as per which goods in question have been confiscated by the customs authorities under section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962.6. having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that ..... aspect, i.e., after the goods are confiscated they vest in the central government by virtue of section 126 of the customs act, 1962 which is to the following effect: '126. on confiscation property to vest in central government: (1) when any goods are confiscated under this ..... the cargo will be left in the containers itself till final delivery is taken by the shippers or customs/concor disposes of the goods following procedure laid down by concor and as specified in indian customs act.'according to the appellant, the defendants 4 and 5 were bound by the terms of the aforesaid ..... these goods, at icd, tughlakabad. the goods reached the icd, tughlakabad. however, when the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 sought clearance of these goods, the customs authorities refused the permission to clear the consignment on the ground that the furnace oil was a hazardous substance. as the plaintiff/respondent no. 1, because of ..... public notice as per which cargo has to be left in the containers itself till the final delivery is taken by the shippers or customs/ccil disposing of the goods .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 2002 (HC)

Enforcement Directorate Vs. Ravi Sharma

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Feb-19-2002

Reported in : 2003(156)ELT180(Del)

..... . the statements of baligur rehman, s.k. sharma and ravi sharma, son of s.k. sharma who also resided with his father, were also recorded under section 108 of the customs act, 1962. it would also appear that s.k. sharma and the appellant were detained under cofeposa. after their release from the prison, the enforcement officers issued summons under section 40 of ..... kong, by checking with the indian authorities at delhi airport and the airlines, in spite of factual variance in that regard in hong kong customs' letter and the appellant's statement under section 108 of the customs act, 1962.14. as regards the admissibility of baligur rehman's statement against the appellant it is to be noted that this statement being in the nature ..... response to the summons after obtaining anticipatory bail. none of them admitted anything which they had confessed before the officer of dri in their statements under section 108 of the customs act.'3. from the evidence on record the appellate board came to the conclusion that the charge framed under section 8(1) of the foreign exchange regulation ..... the material the appellate board gave a finding which is as follows :'12. the statements recorded under section 108 of the customs act can not ipso jure constitute evidence for the purpose of the adjudication proceedings under the foreign exchange regulation act, 1973. that apart, the appellant has disputed that statement as involuntary and not true and relied on the report of his .....

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 16 2002 (HC)

Paramjit Singh Vs. Commissioner of Customs and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Apr-16-2002

Reported in : 2002VIIIAD(Delhi)104; 98(2002)DLT116; 2002(64)DRJ200; 2002(82)ECC547; 2002(143)ELT485(Del)

..... foreign marked gold biscuits, six slabs of gold and ten bars (rods) of gold; and they were seized under section 110 of the customs act, 1962 and section 66 of the gold (control) act, 1968. the recovered gold collectively weighed 27.17 kgs. valued at rs.57,05,815/-; the driver and the cleaner admitted the ..... 27.17 kgs. of gold worth more that rs.57.0 lacs was recovered; the driver and the cleaner in their statement recorded under section 108 of customs act named the petitioner; and after the seizure petitioner absconded. all these circumstances show, prima facie, case for framing of the charge. at the stage of ..... judgment and order dated 21st february, 2002, on the basis of material on record, held that a prima facie case under section 135(1) of customs act against the petitioner is also made out on the ground that the petitioner was concerned in carrying, keeping, dealing with or knew or had reasons to believe ..... in delhi. the driver and the cleaner were held guilty by judgment and order dated 31st october, 1987 under section 135(1)(b) of customs act and were sentenced to undergo ri for one year and three months and to pay a fine of rupees ten thousand each; under section 85 of the ..... of criminal procedure, 1973 is directed against the order dated 21st february, 2002 framing charge against the petitioner under section 135(1)(b) of the customs act.2. i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have been taken through the record.3. facts in brief are that on 30th august, 1986 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 13 2002 (HC)

Kailash Ribbon Factory Ltd. Vs. the Commr. of Customs and Central Exci ...

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Mar-13-2002

Reported in : 2002IVAD(Delhi)107; 97(2002)DLT826; 2002(62)DRJ697; 2002(81)ECC678; 2002(143)ELT60(Del)

..... submitted that the respondents could not have auctioned the confiscated goods. according to the rules and provisions of the act such auction is clearly vocative of the provisions of the customs act, 1962.6. the learned counsel has submitted that section 150 of the customs act has no application to this case because that section relates to goods which are not confiscated. according to ..... the learned counsel this case is squarely covered by section 126 of the customs act. section 126 reads as under:'126. on confiscation ..... , property to vest in central government. -(1) when any goods are confiscated under this act, such goods shall thereupon vest in the central government.'thereforee, according to the submission of the learned counsel ..... take the value of goods declared by the petitioner otherwise it would be a case of unjust enrichment. the petitioner has placed reliance on northern plastics ltd. v. collector of customs and central excise, : 1999ecr826(sc) and shilps impex v. union of india , : 2002(140)elt3(sc) . in shilps' case (supra) their lordships of the hon'ble supreme .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 17 2002 (HC)

Modipon Limited and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-17-2002

Reported in : 2003(85)ECC790; 2002(146)ELT45(Del)

..... kasinka trading and anr. v. union of india and anr. : 1994ecr637(sc) . it is held in this case that the power to grant exemption, as under section 25 of the customs act, 1962, comprehends implicit power to rescind, revoke or withdraw the exemption. it is further mentioned that the exemption notification issued in exercise of statutory power only suspends the levy and collection ..... the decision is in the interest of the general public unless the contrary is shown.'10. mr. maninder singh submitted that these notifications were issued under section 25 of the customs act, 1962 and in the notification itself it is mentioned that the central government is satisfied in public interest so to do and all these notifications have been issued in the public ..... to and inclusive of the 31st day of may, 1983.' notification dated 21.10.1982:- 'in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the customs act, 1962, the central government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby makes the following further amendment in the notification of the government of india ..... on 5.6.82 'exemption to caprolactum:- in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 25 of the customs act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the notification of the government of india in the department of revenue and banking no. 117-customs, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts caprolactum, falling under sub .....

Tag this Judgment!


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