Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.28 seconds)The Customs Act, 1962
Section 3 in The Customs Tariff Act, 1975 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 19A in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
East India Commerclal Co., Ltd. ... vs The Collector Of Customs, Calcutta on 4 May, 1962
21. The next question is whether the import of the said goods was contrary to law in any manner and whether the said goods are liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act. The only provisions relied upon by the appellants are Clauses (d) and (o) in Section 111 of the Customs Act which we have set out hereinabove. In our opinion none of these clauses are attracted in the present case. Clause (d) contemplates an import which is contrary to any prohibition imposed either by the Customs Act or any other law for the time being in force. No such prohibition can be pleaded in this case since on the date of the import the said goods were covered by a valid import licence. The subsequent cancellation of licence is of no relevance nor does it retrospectively render the import illegal. [East India Commercial Co. Ltd. v. The Collector of Customs, Calcutta -1963 (3) S.C.R. 338 at 372.] Clause (o) contemplates confiscation of goods which are exempted from duty subject to a condition, which condition is not observed by the importer. Occasion for taking action under this clause arises only when the condition is not observed within the period prescribed, if any, or where the period is not so prescribed, within a reasonable period. It, therefore, cannot be said that the said goods were liable to be confiscated on the date of their import under Clause (o).
Taparia Overseas (P) Ltd. And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 January, 2003
On the point of contention whether fraud vitiates everything we may refer to the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay decision in the case of Taparia Overseas Ltd. (supra). In that case also the import licenses obtained by license holder by fraud were suspended after the import by the transferees. It was held therein that-