Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Sri Kamakshi Agency, Represented By Its ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Custom House, ... on 12 October, 2000

Skyways vs Commissioner Of Customs (Gen.) on 16 October, 2003

6. Shri Rohit Sethi in his statement dated 27-8-97 has deposed that he is working in M/s. T.C.T. Cargo & Travel (P) Ltd. as a manager and that the Shipping Bill in question was prepared by him and that one Subhash Kumar, employee of TCT Cargo & Travels had put the initials of Shri Ashok Kumar Kalra on the said Shipping Bill. He has also deposed in the said statement that at the time of leaving India, Shri Ashok Kalra had instructed him as well as other Staff members of M/s. TCT Cargo and Travels that anybody may put his initials on any document relating to Customs clearance in case Shri S.L. Juneja was not readily available so that work related to Customs clearance may not suffer. It is thus apparent that the work of Customs clearance assigned to the Appellant is carried out by M/s. TCT Cargo Travels (P) Ltd. Nothing has also been brought on record as to whether before forging the signature, Rohit has tried at all to take the signature of Shri S.L. Juneja. It has been held by the Madras High Court in the case of Shri Kamakshi Agency v. C.C., Madras, 2001 (129) E.L.T. 29 (Mad.) that virtually all the fraudulent activities carried out by the Power of Attorney of CHA were to be treated as having been carried out by him. The Madras High Court has held that the Respondent had rightly revoked the Customs House Agent licence. This judgment has been affirmed by the Supreme Court as reported in 2002 (142) E.L.T. A87.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shyam Singh vs Commissioner, Customs (Airport &Amp ... on 28 April, 2022

10. Thus it can be seen that the purpose, for which such time limit has been prescribed, is to curb the smuggling of goods and in the result to cancel the licenses of the brokers if they are involved and to impose penalty. The interpretation of a statute must always be to give a logical meaning to the object of the legislation and the aim must be to implement the provisions rather than to defeat it. As laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, when a statute prescribes a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be performed in such a manner. Also, the use of the language "shall" in the regulation cannot be termed as "directory" as one of the consequence of the action is the revocation of the licence and it would also pave way for inaction by the officials breeding corruption.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Customs (General) vs Worldwide Cargo Movers on 29 November, 2006

In the case of Sri Kamakshi Agency (supra), the CHA was held responsible for the fraudulent activities of a third party whom it had delegated its functions. That was also left undisturbed by the Supreme Court. The present case is some what similar to one of Sri Kamakshi Agency, if not worse. Here, the CHA has brazenly defended his Regulation 8 employee who gave a fake name of his brother as an importer for undervaluing the imported car. Thus, the employee of the CHA was party to the Firm. The CHA has not disowned him and has, in fact, defended him in the reply filed by him before the appellant. That being so, he is clearly responsible vicariously.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 25 - H L Gokhale - Full Document

M/S. Ashiana Cargo Services vs Commissioner Of Customs (I&G) on 14 March, 2014

In Sri Kamakshi Agency (supra), the licensee stopped working the license, but rather, for remuneration, permitted his Power of Attorney to work the license, thus in effect transferring the license for money. As the CESTAT noted, "9.......................[a]pplicant instead of discharging his functions as a Custom House Agent in accordance with the Regulations, in flagrant violation of those Regulations went to the extent of encashing the facilities made available to him as a CHA by selling it for a price". Moreover, the Power of Attorney was - as a matter of fact - "actively involved in the fraudulent act in connivance with the importers and others and that as per the Power of Attorney Bond executed by Sri K. Natarajan, all acts, deeds and things done by Sri D. Sukumaran were to be construed as if they were done by himself. Therefore virtually all the fraudulent activities carried out by the Power of Attorney of Thiru Natarajan were to be treated as having been carried out by Thiru K. Natarajan himself", i.e. the licensee. In OTA Kandla, too, mens rea (i.e. knowledge) of the licensee was established. By a statement of the petitioner under Section 108, Customs Act, followed by the inquiry, it was clear that the licensee was aware that the consignment contained gypseous alabaster, a prohibited substance, but nonetheless, participated in its release from the Kandla Port.
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 13 - S R Bhat - Full Document

M/S.Sea Coral Clearing & Forwarding vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 13 July, 2016

In support of his contention, the learned counsel referred to the decisions in the cases of Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore reported in 2006 (196) E.LT., 51 (Tri.,-Chennai); Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore vs. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd., reported in 2007 (219) E.L.T., 87 (Mad); Sri Kamakshi Agency vs. Commissioner of Customs, Madras, reported in 2001 (129) E.L.T., 29 (Mad); Commissioner of Customs, (General) vs. Worldwide Cargo Movers., reported in 2010 (253) E.L.T., 190 (Bom); and the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Cappithan Agencies vs. The Commissioner of Customs, in W.A.No.13 of 2016, dated 22.02.2016, and in the case of D.V.R., Freight Forwarders Pvt., Ltd., vs. Commissioner of Cus., (Imports), Chennai, reported in 2015 (326) E.L.T., 108 (Mad).
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

M/S. H.B. Cargo Services vs Cc, Hyderabad on 17 February, 2010

In Sri Kamakshi Agency case(supra), the Honble High Court of Madras upheld the revocation of license of the CHA as justified as the CHA had operated through its power of attorney which had __________ facilities available to a CHA for a price which could never be condoned. The appellant therein which had experience of 30 years of CHA by his action have paved the way for his power of attorney to indulge in serious malpractice which resulted in loss of exchequer to the revenue. There was enough justification for the authorities to treat the action of the appellant as detriment to the interest of the nation as ordering revocation of its license.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

M/S. Interport Impex Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs ... on 11 February, 2014

Reliance is also placed on the Honble Mumbai High Court decision in the case of Shree Kamakshi Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Madras 2001 (129) ELT 29 in which the Honble High Court held that  the grant of license to a person to act as Custom House Agent is to some extent to assist the department with the various procedures such as scrutinizing the various documents to be presented in the course of transaction of business for entry and exist of conveyance or the import or export of the goods. In such circumstances, great confidence is reposed in a Custom House Agent. Any misuse of such position by the Customs House Agent will have far reaching consequences in the transaction of business by the Custom House officials. Therefore when the Applicant who had thirty years of experience as Custom House Agent, when he paved the way for his Power of Attorney to indulge in serious malpractices which ultimately resulted in loss of revenue to the Customs House to the extent of more than 80 lakhs, there is every justification in the respondents in treating the action of the applicant as detrimental to the interest of the nation and pass the final order of revoking his License-----.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next