HC Quashes Rs. 30,000 Customs Penalty as Proceedings Invoked Wrong Warehouse Regulations:

Penalty Invalid Where Authorities Applied Warehouse Regulations Instead of Special Warehouse Regulations
HC Quashes Rs. 30,000 Customs Penalty as Wrong Warehouse Regulations Invoked

HC Quashes Rs. 30,000 Customs Penalty as Proceedings Invoked Wrong Warehouse Regulations
Zaveri and Co. Pvt. Ltd., engaged in importing and processing precious metals, was granted a Special Warehouse licence under Section 58A of the Customs Act, 1962. The licence was surrendered and accepted by the Principal Commissioner of Customs,. Five years later, the customs authorities issued a show cause notice alleging violations of Regulation 11 of the Warehouse (Custody and Handling of Goods) Regulations, 2016 based on an audit report, including failure to maintain digital records and renew solvency and insurance documents.
The petitioner replied that the proceedings were unsustainable since it held a licence under Section 58A governed by the Special Warehouse Regulations, 2016 and not the general Warehouse Regulations invoked in the notice. The authority passed an order imposing a penalty of Rs. 30,000, leading to the petitioner to approach the High Court.
Issue Raised: Whether penalty proceedings under the Warehouse (Custody and Handling of Goods) Regulations, 2016 could be sustained against a holder of a Special Warehouse licence under Section 58A when the applicable regulations were the Special Warehouse Regulations, 2016 and the audit report relied upon was not supplied.
HC Decided: The Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the penalty order. The Court held that warehouses licensed under Section 58A are governed by the Special Warehouse (Custody and Handling of Goods) Regulations, 2016. Since the proceedings were initiated under the general Warehouse Regulations applicable to other categories of warehouses, the action was legally unsustainable.
The Court also noted that the audit report forming the basis of the show cause notice was not supplied to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. The Court refused to remand the matter and set aside the penalty order.
To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below
About Author

Meetu Kumari
Content Manager
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Meetu Kumari is an Experienced Advocate and Content Writer with 4+ years of demonstrated history of working in the law practice industry. Skilled in Developing Content, Researching, and Drafting. Strong professional with a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) focused on Law from Gujarat National Law University.
Studycafe
Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India
2255My Recent Articles
- ITAT Allows Section 80-IE Deduction on Enhanced Business Income After Assessment AdditionPremium
- India Notifies India-Sri Lanka DTAA Protocol Introducing Principal Purpose Test
- ITAT: Entire Gross Receipts of Trust Cannot Be Taxed Despite Section 11 DenialPremium
- ITAT Quashes Section 271(1)(c) Penalty After Original Assessment Was Set AsidePremium
- ITAT Remands Rs 36.60 Crore TP Adjustment in Veolia Intra-Group Services CasePremium
Up Next
Loading suggestions…
Recent Posts

All Posts

Recent Posts

All Posts








