9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of goods by customs authorities under Section 110 of the Customs Act. 2. Jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate in directing the transfer of goods from police custody to customs authorities. Analysis: 1. The case involved the seizure of goods by customs authorities under Section 110 of the Customs Act. The applicant, who arrived in India for his marriage, had his baggage seized by the police under Section 41/411 I.P.C. The customs inspector later applied to transfer the goods to customs custody for adjudication, claiming they were of foreign origin and liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. The applicant argued that no proper seizure had occurred as the goods were initially seized by the police, and there was no unwillingness on the part of any party. The court held that for a valid seizure under Section 110, goods must be taken from an unwilling person, which was not the case here. The order directing transfer to customs custody was quashed as the goods had not been seized by customs authorities. 2. The jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate in directing the transfer of goods from police custody to customs authorities was also questioned. The applicant contended that the Magistrate's order was without jurisdiction as the goods were never seized by customs officers but remained in police custody. The court agreed, stating that for a valid seizure under the Customs Act, the goods must be taken from an unwilling party. Since the goods were never in the possession of customs authorities, the Magistrate's order was deemed erroneous and lacking jurisdiction. Consequently, the court allowed the application and quashed the order dated 1-12-1980, ruling in favor of the applicant. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural aspects of seizure under the Customs Act and the jurisdictional authority of the Metropolitan Magistrate in directing the transfer of goods. The court emphasized the necessity of goods being seized from an unwilling party for a valid seizure under Section 110, ultimately leading to the quashing of the Magistrate's order in this case.
|
