Tag: #Bombay High Court

  • CBIC Notifies Amendments to Entrustment of Powers under Section 110

    CBIC Notifies Amendments to Entrustment of Powers under Section 110

    Date: 17.10.2025

    On October 1, 2025, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issued Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T. ​), introducing amendments to the earlier notification [No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​]. This notification, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), brings significant changes to the Customs Act, 1962, particularly concerning Section 110 and its sub-sections. In this blog, we will delve into the details of the notification, explore the relevant sections of the Customs Act, and discuss case law related to Section 110.

    Key Highlights of Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​

    The notification amends the principal notification [No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​], which was originally published on March 31, 2022, and subsequently amended multiple times. ​ The latest amendments are as follows:

    1. Amendments to Serial Number 6:
      • In column (3), item (vi) and its entries have been substituted with: “(vi) Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110”. ​
    2. Amendments to Serial Number 7:
      • In column (3), item (xiv) and its entries have been substituted with: “(xiv) Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110”. ​

    These changes clarify the applicability of specific sub-sections of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, which deals with the seizure of goods, documents, and things. ​

    Comparative Table: Notification No. 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​ vs Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​

    AspectNotification No. 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​
    Date of Notification ​March 31, 2022 ​October 1, 2025 ​
    PurposeOriginal notification issued to define the powers and functions of customs officers under the Customs Act.Amends specific provisions of Notification No. ​ 26/2022-Customs (N.T.) ​ to update the applicability of Section 110.
    Amendments to Serial No. ​ 6Item (vi) referred to certain sub-sections of Section 110. ​Item (vi) updated to include Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110. ​
    Amendments to Serial No. ​ 7Item (xiv) referred to certain sub-sections of Section 110. ​Item (xiv) updated to include Sub-sections (1), (3), and (5) of Section 110. ​
    Focus AreaGeneral provisions related to customs officers and their powers.Specific focus on the seizure provisions under Section 110 and the role of proper officers. ​
    Referenced SectionsSections 3, 4, 5, and 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.Sections 3, 4, 5, and updated sub-sections of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962.
    Effective DateMarch 31, 2022 ​October 1, 2025 ​
    Subsequent AmendmentsAmended via notifications S.O. ​ 1601(E) (April 4, 2022), S.O. ​ 3186(E) (July 14, 2022), and S.O. ​ 5773(E) (December 10, 2022). ​Latest amendment introduced through Notification No. 63/2025-Customs (N.T. ​).

    Circular No. ​ 07/2022-Customs

    The Circular No. ​ 07/2022-Customs, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, on March 31, 2022, outlines amendments to the Customs Act, 1962, introduced through the Finance Act, 2022. ​ Key changes include modifications to Section 2(34) for assigning functions to customs officers, inclusion of officers from DRI, Audit, and Preventive formations under Section 3, and the insertion of new sub-sections (1A), (1B), (4), and (5) under Section 5 to clarify the assignment of functions and jurisdiction. A new Section 110AA has been added to ensure that the original officer retains jurisdiction for further actions after inquiries or audits.

    Understanding Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 ​

    Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, outlines the provisions related to the seizure of goods, documents, and other items by customs authorities. The relevant sub-sections are as follows:

    • Sub-section (1): Empowers a proper officer to seize goods, documents, or things if there is a reasonable belief that they are liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.
    • Sub-section (3): Specifies the procedure for issuing a notice to the owner of the seized goods, requiring them to show cause why the goods should not be confiscated.
    • Sub-section (5): Provides the conditions under which seized goods may be released provisionally to the owner, subject to furnishing a bond or security.

    These provisions ensure that customs authorities can take necessary action against goods suspected of violating customs laws while safeguarding the rights of the owners.

    Sub-section (34) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1962 ​

    Sub-section (34) of Section 2 defines the term “proper officer”. It states: “Proper officer”, in relation to any functions to be performed under this Act, means the officer of customs who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs.”

    This definition is crucial as it determines the authority of customs officers to act under various provisions of the Customs Act, including Section 110.

    Overview of Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Customs Act, 1962

    1. Section 3: Officers of Customs This section specifies the classes of officers of customs, including Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Joint Commissioners, Deputy Commissioners, Assistant Commissioners, and other officers. It establishes the hierarchy and roles within the customs department.
    2. Section 4: Appointment of Officers of Customs Under this section, the Central Government is empowered to appoint officers of customs. It also allows the government to authorize certain officers to exercise the powers and discharge the duties of customs officers.
    3. Section 5: Powers of Officers of Customs ​ Section 5 outlines the powers of customs officers, which include exercising authority under the Customs Act. ​ Sub-sections (1A), (4), and (5) of this section were referenced in the recent notification, emphasizing the delegation of powers to proper officers for specific functions. ​

    Case Law Related to Section 110: Proper Officer and Seizure of Goods

    In M/s. Nikom Copper and Conductors Pvt. ​ Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others, the petitioner challenged the seizure of imported copper goods by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), alleging the seizure was illegal and lacked “reason to believe” as required under Section 110 of the Customs Act. ​ Bombay High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the seizure memo and declaring the cancellation of amendments to the bills of entry invalid due to procedural violations. The Court ordered the release of the goods to the petitioner upon payment of duties and completion of formalities. ​

    Conclusion

    The recent amendments introduced by Notification No. ​ 63/2025-Customs (N.T.) ​ aim to streamline the application of Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, by specifying the relevant sub-sections. ​ These changes reinforce the role of proper officers in ensuring compliance with customs laws while safeguarding the rights of individuals. Additionally, the provisions under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Customs Act provide a robust framework for the appointment and empowerment of customs officers.​

    Handy Download:

  • Bombay High Court Upholds Importers Right to Re-Testing of Seized Goods

    Bombay High Court Upholds Importers Right to Re-Testing of Seized Goods

    Date: 04.10.2025

    In a significant ruling by the Bombay High Court, the case of Appellant vs. Union of India & Others sheds light on the importance of trade facilitation measures and the Government of India’s commitment to the β€˜Ease of Doing Business’ policy. This judgment, addresses the contentious issue of re-testing seized goods and the procedural hurdles faced by importers.

    The petitioner, Appellant, a business proprietor, sought relief against the refusal by Customs Authorities to re-test seized cashew nuts. ​ The goods were initially tested in a Maharashtra laboratory, yielding favorable results. However, subsequent samples were sent to a Kerala laboratory, which reported adverse findings. ​ The petitioner argued that the refusal to re-test the goods in Maharashtra was unreasonable and contrary to the guidelines outlined in Public Notice No. 97 of 2017.

    Handy Download:

  • Delegated Legislation in Indirect Taxes: Judicial Scrutiny under the Customs Act, 1962 & Indirect Taxes

    Delegated Legislation in Indirect Taxes: Judicial Scrutiny under the Customs Act, 1962 & Indirect Taxes

    Date: 28.08.2025

    ​ ​ ​ ​

    • Article 245–246: Only Parliament/State legislatures can levy taxes; delegation cannot include β€œessential legislative functions.”
    • Article 265: β€œNo tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.” Thus, a rule, notification, circular, or regulation cannot create/expand a tax liability without clear legislative sanction.
    • Doctrine of Excessive Delegation: Laid down in In re Delhi Laws Act (1951 SCR 747), later reaffirmed in Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1979 1 SCC 137). Parliament may delegate the manner or details of implementation, but not the policy or essential features.
    • Judicial role: Courts test whether delegated instruments remain within the β€œparent Act” or trespass into taxation without statute.

    Handy Download:

  • Bombay High Court Quashes IGST Interest and Penalty

    Bombay High Court Quashes IGST Interest and Penalty

    Date: 11.07.2025

    In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in A.R. Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition No. 19366 of 2024, delivered on 9th April 2025, held that interest, penalty, and redemption fine imposed for non-compliance with the β€œpre-import” condition under the Advance Authorization Scheme are without the authority of law. The Court quashed the relevant portion of the Customs adjudication order dated 1st August 2024 and invalidated CBIC Circular No. 16/2023-Customs to the extent it sought to recover interest along with IGST.

    The Petitioner, A.R. Sulphonates Pvt. Ltd., imported Linear Alkyl Benzene (LAB) under eleven Advance Authorization Licenses between 27th October 2017 and 27th March 2018. These imports were made without payment of IGST, relying on Notification No. 18/2015-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 79/2017-Cus., which imposed a β€œpre-import” condition for exemption from IGST.

    Subsequently, DRI initiated investigations alleging violation of the pre-import condition, leading to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice seeking:

    • IGST demand of β‚Ή7.18 crore,
    • Interest under Section 28AA,
    • Penalty under Section 112(a),
    • Redemption fine of β‚Ή2 crore under Section 125, and
    • Enforcement of bonds under Section 143(3).
    • The adjudication order dated 1st August 2024 confirmed these demands.

    Handy Download: