CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Bombay High Court Condemns Customs Authorities for Unjust Detention of Goods and Misapplication of Regulations

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a scathing judgment, the Bombay High Court, comprising Hon'ble Justices JITENDRA JAIN and G. S. KULKARNI, has strongly criticized customs authorities for their unjustified detention of goods and the misapplication of regulations. The case centered around the release of consignments of "Lithium Ion Cells" and the dispute over compliance with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) marking and labeling requirements.

Justices JITENDRA JAIN observed, "There is no justification whatsoever on the part of the respondents in not permitting the release of the consignments in question. In fact, we are quite surprised by the stand taken by the department and that too on complete misapplication of the provisions of the 2018 Regulations, as also the Circulars in question."

The judgment further highlighted the high-handed approach of customs officers, stating, "Such an approach, as adopted by the concerned officers of the customs, is, in fact, high-handed, unknown to the law, and counterproductive to the green initiatives of the Government of India, to promote electric vehicles."

The case also involved the issuance of a show cause notice to the petitioner under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. While the show cause notice was challenged in the proceedings, the Court emphasized that it should proceed independently and be decided expeditiously within two months.

Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, partly allowing the petition. The judgment not only highlights the need for customs authorities to adhere to regulations but also serves as a reminder of the importance of a fair and lawful approach in such matters.

Date of Decision: 02 November 2023

Chetak Technology Ltd. VS Union of India

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Bom-02-Nov-2023-Chetan-Technologies-Vs-UOI.pdf"]

Latest Legal News