Supreme Court rules Port Trusts liable for customs duty on pilfered goods
This case concerns whether the Union of India can recover customs duty from the Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay for goods pilfered while in the Port Trust's custody, specifically challenging the validity of a 2000 notification that designated the Port Trust as a custodian under the Customs Act.
Appellants: Union of India & Others; Respondent: The Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay; Bench: Justice Nagarathna.
- The Court identified the core legal question as whether the Notification dated 11.10.2000, which approved the respondent-Port Trust as the custodian of the notified customs area under Section 45(1) of the Customs Act, is valid.
- The Court noted that the controversy is confined to the correctness of the High Court's declaration that the 2000 Notification was without jurisdiction and ultra vires Section 45(1) of the Customs Act.
- The Court acknowledged that demands for duty raised for the period prior to the 2000 Notification cannot be sustained because the respondent had not been approved as a custodian during that time.
Written from the document by AI, and checked against it. The original below is authoritative.
The original document
Document details
| Official title | Ports Governed By Major Port Trusts Act Liable To Pay Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods Under Customs Act : Supreme Court |
| Source body | Supreme Court of India — orders & judgments |
| Reference number | — |
| Status | closed (order) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Closing date | — |
| Documents | 1 |