Whether Importer can be treated as the original owner of Goods for Provisional Release of Seized Goods under Customs Act

Last updated: 19 September 2022
Quick Summary
The Bombay High Court has ruled that an importer cannot automatically be considered the 'owner' of goods for the purpose of provisional release under Section 110A of the Customs Act. In this case, the importer failed to provide evidence of ownership for seized, misdeclared goods. The court found the Tribunal's decision to allow release based on the importer definition to be an erroneous interpretation, stating release is only permissible to a proven owner.

Court :
Bombay High Court

Brief :
The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Dinesh BhabootmalSalecha [CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO. 20820 OF 2022 dated September 8, 2022] held that for the interim release of goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the Customs Act")the importer of the goods cannot be regarded as the "owner" of the commodities. 

Citation :
CUSTOM APPEAL (L) NO. 20820 OF 2022 dated September 8, 2022

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Broadcasts
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 

Bimal Jain
Published in Custom
Views : 292
Share Report Abuse
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. Forest Development Tax Demand, Collection and Refund Subject to Final Outcome of Pending Cases
  2. SC : Extended Limitation Cannot Be Invoked Where Department Was Aware of Valuation Facts
  3. SC : Selling Shares While in Possession of UPSI Constitutes Insider Trading Even if No Profit Is Made
  4. SC : Laser Imagers Compatible with Machines Under Different Tariff Headings Classifiable Under CTH 9033
  5. Education Consultancy Services to Foreign Universities Not Intermediary Services; Refund of IGST on Export of Services Allowed
  6. Penalty Cannot Be Confirmed Beyond What is Specified in Statutory Form GST DRC-01
  7. Non-Supply of Field Visit Report Vitiates Rejection of Revocation Application
  8. Alternative Remedy before GSTAT to be Exhausted Despite Allegation that Adjudication Travelled Beyond SCN
  9. ITAT Jodhpur: AO Allows ₹2.61 Crore Deduction under Sections 54EC and 54F; Assessee's Appeal Dismissed as Infructuous
  10. CESTAT Revokes Suspension of Customs Broker Licence for Non-Compliance with Mandatory 15-Day Hearing Requirement

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member B L BhojwaniB L BhojwaniPro Member naresh kharenaresh kharePro Member Manoj SharmaManoj SharmaPro Member Ravi VarshneyRavi VarshneyPro Member purshottam guptapurshottam gupta
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category