Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (0.67 seconds)
Documents citing Commr.Of Customs vs M/S K.M.Ganatra & Co. on 14 January, 2016

Ics Cargo vs Commissioner, Customs (General)-New ... on 6 January, 2023

9. We further observe that learned DR has laid emphasis upon several case laws where the objective of Customs Broker License regulations has been appreciated and where Customs Brokers have been punished for the noticed fault. We have no reason to differ from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M. Ganatra & Co. reported as 2016 (332) E.L.T 15 (S.C.), wherein, it was held that while acting as a Customs House Agent one should not be a cause for violation of the provisions of Customs Broker License Regulations and even of Customs Act, 1962. A CHA cannot be permitted to misuse his position as a CHA by taking advantage of his excess to the department. Any misuse of such position by the customs House Agent will have far reaching consequences in the transaction of business by the Customs House Officials. However, we observe that the relied case law is not applicable to the given facts and the circumstances for the reasons as mentioned below.
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sai Chhaya Impex Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner, Customs-New Delhi ... on 3 February, 2023

25. I also note that the CB has relied some judgments in their favour. However, I find that the judgments relied upon by the CB are distinguished on the facts and circumstances of each case. Rather reliance is placed on the decision of Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India who in its judgement dated 14.01.2016 in Commissioner of Customs versus K.M. Gantra & Co. In Civil Appeal 24 No. 2940 of 2008 inter alia observed that ―The CHA occupies a very important position in the Customs House. The Customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. Carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulations.‖
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D Gupta - Full Document

M/S.Bharath Marine Co vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 14 February, 2018

14. Further, the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M.Ganatra & Co. reported in 2016 (332) E.L.T. 15 (SC), the role of a Custom House Agent is very important in the Custom House and the Custom House Agent is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs, and this aspect will be considered, when the show cause notice is adjudicated.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - T S Sivagnanam - Full Document

M/S.Blessings Cargo Care Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 9 January, 2018

In Commissioner of Customs vs. K.M.Ganatra & Company reported in (2016) 4 SCC 687, the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted the observation of CEGAT, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai, with regard to the role of a Customs House Agent like the petitioner. It was pointed out that the Customs House Agent (CHA) occupies the very important position in the customs house. The customs procedures are complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies namely carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through its agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well as by the government agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of the CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA, the punishment listed in the Regulations. This being the level of trust and confidence imposed on a customs broker, who has been issued a licence under the relevant Regulation, it has to be seen as to whether the impugned order of suspension under Regulation 19(2) of the Act, is sustainable or not. Regulation 19 of the CBLR, deals with suspension of licence. Regulation 19(1) states that notwithstanding anything contained in regulation 18, the Commissioner of Customs may, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, suspend the licence of a Customs Broker, where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated. Regulation 19(2) states that where a licence is suspended under sub-regulation (1), the Commissioner of Customs shall, within fifteen days from the date of such suspension, give an opportunity of hearing to the Customs Broker whose licence is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit either revoking the suspension or continuing it, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of hearing granted to the Customs Broker. Proviso in Regulation 19 states that provided that in case the Commissioner of Customs passes an order for continuing the suspension, the further procedure thereafter shall be as provided in regulation 20. In the instant case, the power under Regulation 19(1), was invoked as in the opinion of the Commissioner of Customs, it was found that it is an appropriate case, where immediate action is necessary. In terms of sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 19, opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner which was availed and the Commissioner has passed the impugned order continuing the suspension and stating that proceedings will be initiated under Regulation 20. In accordance with the said observations, show cause notice dated 03.11.2017 has been issued and received by the petitioner.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Friends Syndicate Clearing Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Mumbai - ... on 7 June, 2022

07. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M. Ganatra & Co. Civil appeal no. 2940 of 2008, decided on 14.01.2016, has postulated that, "The CHA occupies a very important position in the Custom House. The Customs procedure is complicated. The importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. Carriers, custodians like BPT as well as the Customs. The importer would find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed to safeguard the interest of both the importers and the Customs. A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importer / exporters as well as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge of such trust, the relevant regulations are framed. Regulation 14 of CHA Licensing Regulations lists out obligations by CHA. Any contravention of such obligation even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA the punishment listed in the Regulation...."
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Granada Air Services Pvt Ltd vs -Kolkata(Admn Airport) on 27 July, 2022

4.8 In the present case, the goods were imported over a considerable period of time on the basis of declared value or after loading the same as per advice of the Government Valuer or by Appraising/Assessing Officer. In the present case also, values have been enhanced since the Customs Officer and Government approved valuers themselves have found the value as declared on the Bill of Entries filed to be under-valued, the Customs Broker, who is neither an expert in the field of valuation as Government valuer or in the field of appraisement as a Customs Officer can be held guilty for not able to find out the correct value while filing these documents and advice his client accordingly. Any violation which was detected by the DRI subsequently on basis of longdrawn investigations, which goes contrary to the assessments made by the Customs officer on the Bill of 20 Customs Appeal No.75410 of 2022 Entry, cannot be the reason for holding Customs Broker to have acted for violation the Regulation 10 (d), unless and until, a specific charge of connivance with the Customs Officers is made. In the present case, the Commissioner did not find any such connivance. 4.9 Reliance placed by the Commissioner on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs. K.M.Ganatra and Company in Civil Appeal No.2940 of 2008, cannot be justified as the facts of that case are not identical. the case of K M Ganatra was the case where the Custom House Agent had sub-let his license. In para 2 of the order Hon'ble Apex Court recorded the facts as follows:
Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next