Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.97 seconds)
Shantilal Mehta vs Collector Of Customs on 16 September, 1993 cites

State Of U.P. vs Lavkush Kumar And Ors. on 16 May, 1985

On a plain reading of these provisions it is evident that seizure of goods is not mandatory or a pre-requisite for confiscation of any goods which are imported improperly or in contravention of any prohibition under the Customs Act, or under any other law. Hence the appellant's contention that the goods in question having been detained and not seized were not liable for confiscation has no force at all and has to be rejected. From the words "....he may seize" in Section 110(i) it is evident that seizure of any goods in respect of which the proper officer entertains the belief that they are liable to confiscation is discretionary any liability to confiscation of any goods which are imported contrary to any prohibition under any law for the time being in force does not cease, if such improperly imported goods are only detained and not seized. The judgement of the Madras High Court in the case of Jenson Enterprises v. Collector of Customs, Cochin reported in 1987 (28) ELT 346 and the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Lavkush Kumar are not relevant since the question examined in these cases was whether the seizure of goods made by the concerned officers was legal.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 31 - Full Document
1   2 Next