Section 141. Conveyances and goods in a customs area subject to control of officers of customs

Judgments on Section 141

• M/S International Cargo Terminal Pvt… vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai -… — CESTAT, 8 Jun 2026. Immediate suspension of a CFS/CCSP approval under Regulation 11 of HCCAR, 2009 is only a temporary measure and cannot be continued beyond a reasonable period (and beyond the 15-day limit indicated in Regulation 7(2))…
• Speedy Multimodes Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs Ns-Gen… — CESTAT, 4 Mar 2024. A CFS custodian/CCSP cannot escape liability for pilferage of seized goods in its custody merely because third parties had access; it must indemnify the value of the lost goods under Regulation 5(6) of HCCAR and is…
• Sahaj Impex vs Balmer Lawrie And Co. Ltd — Bombay High Court, 18 Jan 2021. A Customs Cargo Service Provider or custodian cannot charge rent or demurrage on goods seized, detained or confiscated by the proper officer of customs for the certified detention period, must release the goods on…
• Kannur International Airport Ltd vs Cochin-Cus — CESTAT, 23 Sep 2025. Interest under Section 28AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is attracted only where the amount payable is 'duty' under Section 28, and therefore cannot be levied on cost recovery charges, which are not duty.
• M/S Prenda Creations Pvt Ltd vs Union Of India And Ors — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 4 Apr 2025. Where Customs authorities, despite judicial orders, fail to act promptly and perishable imported goods are destroyed in their custody, the importer is entitled to refund of the customs duty with interest and to…
• Central Warehousing Corporation vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 22 Jul 2024. In the absence of a statutory recovery mechanism and rates and manner specified by the Government of India, cost recovery charges cannot be recovered from a CFS/custodian even under Regulations 5(2) and 6(1)(o) of the…
• Diamond And Gem Development vs Ahmedabad — CESTAT, 12 Jun 2024. Cost recovery charges for customs officers posted in a customs area cannot be confirmed or recovered from a Customs Cargo Service provider where HCCAR, 2009 prescribes no recovery mechanism and the Government of India…
• Apm Terminals India P Ltd Main vs The Commissioner Of Customs Ns-Gen… — CESTAT, 17 May 2024. Control of customs areas under HCCAR-2009 confers no authority on customs officers to enforce the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989, a public notice has no legal standing under the…
• Poonam Pundir vs C.C. Noida — CESTAT, 27 Mar 2024. Section 158 of the Customs Act, 1962 is an enabling rule-making provision under which no penalty can be directly imposed, and a warehouse licence cannot be cancelled on mere possibilities of intention without…
• Central Board Of Excise And Customs vs M/S Gmr Hyderabad International… — Telangana High Court, 27 Mar 2024. Cost recovery charges in the nature of salaries of Customs officers performing statutory duties cannot be levied by regulation absent express statutory authorization, and such administrative charges, being a tax without…
• Container Corporation Of India Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva — CESTAT, 11 Sep 2023. A custodian/CCSP to whom seized goods are handed over for safe custody under a panchanama cannot escape liability for pilferage caused by negligence by pleading absence of supratnama or non-involvement of its employees,…
• M/S.Sherisha Technologies Pvt. Ltd vs The Chief Commissioner Of Customs — Madras High Court, 13 Jun 2022. Rent/demurrage on seized imported goods stored in a customs area is waivable for the investigation period under Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, but thereafter liability…
• Green Gold Timbers Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director Akhilesh Manglik vs Commissioner Of Customs — Gujarat High Court, 12 Jan 2022. A Customs Cargo Service Provider, as defined in Regulation 2(1)(b) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009, is not entitled in law to charge any rent or demurrage on goods seized or detained or…
• M/S.Sun Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India — Madras High Court, 2 Jun 2021. Cost Recovery Charges cannot be levied or collected from a Customs Cargo Service Provider in the absence of a notification/Government order specifying the rates under the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations,…
• The Supreme Industries Limited Through… vs The Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And… — Bombay High Court, 8 Mar 2021. In case of repugnancy between a validly made subordinate legislation and a private contract, the contract must yield; a detention cum demurrage waiver certificate issued under Regulation 10(1)(l) of the SCMTR, 2018…
• Shree Shyam Enterprises vs Union Of India & Ors — Delhi High Court, 20 Dec 2019. The prohibition in Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 on charging rent or demurrage on seized, detained or confiscated goods is 'subject to any other law for the time being in…
• M/S Shri Lakshmi Steels vs Union Of India & Others — Punjab-Haryana High Court, 23 Dec 2016. Where non-prohibited imported goods are detained inordinately by DRI/Customs and the importer's declaration is ultimately vindicated, the importer cannot be burdened with detention or demurrage charges, which must be…
• M/S. Mumbai International Airport… vs The Union Of India, Through Secretary,… — Bombay High Court, 13 Oct 2014. A custodian appointed under section 45 of the Customs Act who voluntarily accepts custodianship and facility approvals subject to the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 is bound by Regulation 5(2), and…
• Trip Communication Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Others — Delhi High Court, 28 Mar 2014. Demurrage/detention waiver under Regulation 6(1)(l) HCCAR, 2009 and the AAI Policy for Waiver must be harmoniously construed: an importer against whom fine, penalty, personal penalty and/or warning is imposed gets no…