Case Details: Container Corporation of India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs Import-I, Tughlakabad (2025) 30 Centax 290 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, Sr. Adv., Rishi K. Awasthi, Piyush Vatsa, Amit Vikram Awasthi, Advs. & Punit Vinay. AOR, for the Appellant.
Facts of the Case
The appellant was appointed as custodian of imported goods under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. After unloading the goods within the Customs area, certain goods were pilfered while under the appellant’s custody. The Department demanded duty on these pilfered goods under Section 45(3) of the Customs Act. The appellant challenged the demand, contending that ultimate confiscation of the pilfered goods under Sections 111(l) and 111(m) of the Customs Act negated the liability to pay duty. The High Court ruled in favour of the Department, holding the custodian liable to pay duty on pilfered goods in its custody. The matter was brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in appeal.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the custodian appointed under Section 45(1) is liable to pay duty on goods pilfered during their custody within the Customs area, as per Section 45(3) of the Customs Act, irrespective of the subsequent confiscation under Sections 111(l) and 111(m). It was noted that the goods had indisputably entered the Customs area and were imported goods within the meaning of Section 2(25) of the Customs Act. The Court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Container Corporation of India Ltd. v. Commissioner — (2025) 28 Centax 62 (Del.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
