2026-VIL-1456-CESTAT-HYD-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Warehousing of imported goods - Appellant imported Manganese Ore and obtained permission to warehouse goods in designated Public Bonded Warehouse but goods were diverted to private yard instead - Whether diversion from specified warehouse to unauthorized premises violates warehousing provisions and attracts confiscation and whether acts of warehouse operator engaged by appellant are attributable to importer - HELD - Diversion of imported goods from notified warehouse to unauthorized private yard amounts to violation of Section 59 and 60 of Customs Act read with Warehouse Goods (Removal) Regulations 2016. Warehousing is statutory concession subject to strict compliance with statutory conditions and importer cannot unilaterally alter place of storage on grounds of commercial convenience. The acts of agent or contractor engaged for handling warehousing and transportation operations are deemed to have been done with knowledge and consent of importer under Section 147 unless importer establishes contrary with cogent evidence. Contemporaneous communications and statements of persons connected with appellant establish diversion was known to appellant - Liability to confiscation under Section 111(j) does not depend on proof of actual duty evasion or clandestine clearance but on violation of statutory conditions governing removal and warehousing - Redemption fine under Section 125 is imposable despite provisional release of goods as statutory consequences flow from confiscation. Penalty under Section 112(a) correctly imposed for failure to ensure compliance with statutory obligation - The appeal is dismissed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page