Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case Non-Registration of Tenancy Invites Eviction, Dual Ownership No Bar to Landlord's Rights: Madras High Court Pension Must Reflect Retrospective Pay Revision: Kerala HC Directs Revised Payout within Four Weeks Regularization Issue Must Be Resolved by Industrial Tribunal: Karnataka High Court puts recruitment on hold for a month, calls for review of contract workers’ status Reliance on Hostile Witnesses and Lack of Forensic Evidence Cannot Sustain Conviction: J&K High Court Acquits Accused in Assault Case" Injunction Suit Valid Without Title Declaration When Plaintiff's Possession Is Clear: Orissa High Court Pretrial Detention Cannot Amount to Pre-Conviction Punishment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail in Attempted Murder Case Concessions/Statements by Counsel Cannot Be Disowned By Party on Claims of Misunderstanding: Delhi High Court Rules Against SAI Bank Officers Must Adhere to ‘Higher Standards of Honesty and Integrity: Jharkhand High Court in Upholding Dismissal for Misappropriation Strict Proof of Marriage Not Mandatory for Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC: Calcutta High Court High Court Upholds Seniority Rights of Contractual Junior Engineers NDPS | Three Years Without Trial Progress Cannot Justify Continued Incarceration: Bombay High Court Grants Bail Integrity is Non-Negotiable in Judicial Service: Allahabad High Court Affirms Termination for Concealed Criminal Case Court Must Presume Offence at Charge-Framing Stage, Not Assess Likelihood of Conviction: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Permission Under Section 64(d) Custom Act Deems Removal of Goods Not Unauthorized – Supreme Court Modifies CESTAT Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgement, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal of M/S. Bisco Limited against the Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), offering clarity on warehousing regulations under the Customs Act.

The core legal issue revolved around the misuse of warehousing facilities, interpretation of warehousing regulations under the Customs Act, and the applicable sections for the calculation of customs duty.

M/S. Bisco Limited was accused of misusing warehousing facilities, leading to the confiscation, imposition of duty, and penalties on 27 missing cases and 264 cases of goods found outside the warehouse but within the company’s premises.

The Supreme Court, led by Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, found that the 264 cases of goods were not unauthorizedly removed, as they were outside the notified warehouse but within the appellant’s premises with valid permission. However, the court upheld the respondent’s claim regarding the 27 missing cases, deeming their removal unauthorized.

Permission for Storage Outside Warehouse Valid: The court noted the appellant had permission under Section 64(d) to store goods outside the bonded warehouse due to heavy rain, making the removal temporary and not unauthorized.

Reevaluation of Applicable Sections: The Supreme Court stated that Section 15(1)(c) of the Customs Act applied, as the warehousing period was still operational, marking a departure from the respondent’s and CESTAT’s interpretation.

For 264 Cases: The court set aside the demand of customs duty and interest, directing a reevaluation under Section 15(1)(c) within eight weeks.

For 27 Missing Cases: The court sustained the demand of customs duty and interest, along with maintaining the penalty under Section 112 due to unauthorized removal.

Date of Decision: March 20, 2024

M/S. Bisco Limited vs Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise

Similar News