Section 8. Power to approve landing places and specify limits of customs area

Judgments on Section 8

• Union Of India vs The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of Bombay — Supreme Court of India, 25 Aug 2026. Custody of imported goods derived from another statute, such as the Major Port Trusts Act, does not bar approval of that person as custodian under Section 45(1) or fasten liability on him under Section 45(3) for duty on…
• 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…
• 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…
• Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive) vs I T C Global Holdings Pvt Ltd — Gujarat High Court, 5 Aug 2026. Burnt cars reduced to scrap are neither restricted 'commercial and passenger automobile vehicles' under the Negative List nor 'second hand goods', so their import is not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), and…
• 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.
• Nayara Energy Limited vs Jamnagar(Prev) — CESTAT, 8 Apr 2025. Whether floating crane/unloading charges incurred in moving cargo from a vessel to barges are transport costs includible in assessable value under Section 14 or loading-unloading costs covered by the statutory 1% is a…
• 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…
• 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…
• Goodearth Maritime Limited vs Kandla — CESTAT, 12 Mar 2020. Cost recovery charges from a custodian under Regulation 5(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 are unsustainable in law because customs clearance is a sovereign function, no special service or…