Section 57. Licensing of public warehouses

Judgments on Section 57

• Frigorifico Allana P Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 28 Jun 2024. Breach of conditions appended to a warehouse licence may warrant cancellation of the licence but not penalty under section 117, because imposition of penalty is in the realm of statutory enactment only and regulation 12…
• Ganesh Benzoplast Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 22 Apr 2024. Storage or unloading of imported goods, even in non-bonded tanks or through pipelines into a bonded warehouse, attracts no confiscation, redemption fine or penalty where it is done with the prior permission of the…
• M/S Bisco Limited Through Its Managing… vs Commissioner Of Customs And Central Excise — Supreme Court of India, 20 Mar 2024. Goods kept outside a bonded warehouse but within the premises under a proper officer's permission under Section 64(d), which is never cancelled or revoked, are not 'improperly or unauthorisedly removed' under Sections…
• Sbec Sugar Limited A Company… vs Union Of India (Uoi) Through The Joint… — Bombay High Court, 3 Apr 2006. Warehoused goods that remain beyond the permitted bond period are deemed improperly removed under Section 72, duty being payable at the rate applicable on the date the bond expired, Sections 68 and 15(1)(b) having no…
• Hazel Mercantile Limited vs Kandla Customs — CESTAT, 7 Sep 2026. Where the department's test reports are inconclusive or bested by more specialized reports under the 'most akin' test, and the disputed goods are merely a species of the declared genus (NGL within Naphtha) covered by…
• Baker Hughes Oilfield Services India Pvt Ltd vs Customs Authority For Advance Rulings And Anr — Delhi High Court, 19 Aug 2026. A re-import exemption presupposes sufficient continuity between the export and the return; where the original concessional transaction has concluded with export to an FTWZ/SEZ, a subsequent movement into the DTA under a…
• Akshay Logistics vs Commissioner Of Customs-Nhava Sheva-I — CESTAT, 7 Jul 2025. Confiscation under section 111(j) fails unless the goods are established to have been removed from the warehouse after bonding without the proper officer's permission or in breach of its terms, and minor, rectified…
• Tm International Logistics Limited vs -Patna(Prev) — CESTAT, 5 Dec 2024. Revocation of a warehousing licence under Section 58B(1) without giving the licensee an opportunity to cure a curable infraction — such as an audit-trail delay caused by circumstances beyond its control — is legally not…
• Kundan Care Products Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-New Delhi Acc… — CESTAT, 31 Jul 2024. A penalty imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act for 'contravention' of statutory provisions is not a penalization for an 'offence', since offences and penalties are distinct categories; therefore, a licensee who…
• 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…
• New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs M/S. Mudit Roadways — Supreme Court of India, 24 Nov 2023. Sections 22 and 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 (abatement and remission of duty on goods lost or destroyed) enure exclusively to 'importers' of the goods, so a bonded warehouse custodian/licensee remains liable for the…
• Belapur vs Flemingo Airport Retail Pvt Ltd — CESTAT, 24 Oct 2019. Sale of goods by an airport outlet in the Security Hold Area of the international departure terminal to outgoing international passengers is an export under the Customs Act, 1962 — the seller is the 'exporter' under…
• 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…