2026-VIL-157-DEL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-157-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS High Court Cases

Customs - Petition for Quashing Confiscation – Import of boiled betel nuts from Indonesia. Customs authorities reclassified the goods as areca nuts under CTH 0802 80 10, finding them to be prohibited imports under the Minimum Import Price (MIP) condition, and ordered absolute confiscation without granting the statutory option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Whether the petitioner was entitled to the statutory option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, despite the goods being classified as prohibited areca nuts – HELD - The Section 125(1) of the Customs Act employs the expression "may", thereby conferring discretion upon the adjudicating authority to grant or deny redemption, particularly in cases involving prohibited goods. The adjudicating authority had recorded detailed reasons for treating the goods as prohibited on account of MIP/CIF violation and deliberate misclassification, and for denying redemption. No case of perversity, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice was made out to warrant interference under Article 226. The statutory scheme and judicial precedents emphasize finality in fiscal matters, and Courts cannot, on equitable considerations, dilute statutory mandates or timelines – The writ petition is dismissed - Whether the writ petition was maintainable, considering the petitioner had failed to challenge the Order-in-Original within the statutory period under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 – HELD - The petitioner had failed to challenge the Order-in-Original within the statutory period of 60 days, extendable by a further 30 days, under Section 128 of the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had rightly dismissed the delayed appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner's attempt to invoke Article 226 after having lost the statutory remedy by its own inaction could not be countenanced, as the writ jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass statutory remedies, especially where the litigant has disabled itself by delay. The petitioner's conduct is evasive, dilatory, and lacking in bona fides, and there was no timely effort to seek provisional release or other appropriate relief, indicating a calculated strategy to avoid the authorities.
Download File
show more Judgements  

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Tax Vista

Your Weekly Tax Recap

By Kasi Viswanathan V

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

Analysis of Union Budget 2026-27:
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?