Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.27 seconds)Section 19 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 130 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
M/S.Ktr Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 13 August, 2015
(KTR Logistics
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai), 2021 (378) ELT 144 (Mad) (PL Shipping and
Logistics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-
VII), 2021 (377) ELT 562 (Mad) (Aristo Shipping Services
vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII),
2022 (382)ELT 30 (Del) (Leo Cargo Services vs.
7
Commissioner of Customs, Airport and General, New
Delhi) and 2023 (384) ELT 558 (Del.)
M/S Leo Cargo Services Through Its ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Airport And ... on 28 July, 2022
(KTR Logistics
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs,
Chennai), 2021 (378) ELT 144 (Mad) (PL Shipping and
Logistics Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-
VII), 2021 (377) ELT 562 (Mad) (Aristo Shipping Services
vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII),
2022 (382)ELT 30 (Del) (Leo Cargo Services vs.
7
Commissioner of Customs, Airport and General, New
Delhi) and 2023 (384) ELT 558 (Del.)
M/S. Ota Falloons Forwarders Pvt. Ltd vs Union Of India & Anr on 5 June, 2018
18. The order impugned before the Tribunal has been
premised upon the enquiry report. The order impugned
before the Tribunal has prescribed both cancellation of the
license as well as forfeiture of the security deposit of the
broker. The Tribunal has accepted a portion of the order
impugned before it, that is to say that, it has upheld the
10
forfeiture of the security deposit of the broker while setting
aside the order of cancellation of the license. In doing so, it
has to be held that, the Tribunal accepted the enquiry
report partially in imposing such a penalty on the
respondent. If the Tribunal had discarded, the enquiry
report in its entirety, which it could not have done, in view
of the pronouncement of this Court in Asian Freight
(supra) and Ota Falloons Forwarders Private Limited
(supra) which were binding upon it, at that material point of
time, then, the order under appeal before the Division
Bench could not have been sustained. Again, the Division
Bench has noted that, the Tribunal has accepted a portion
of the enquiry report and therefore, the Division Bench has
proceeded to uphold the order of the Tribunal impugned
before it.
The Principal Commssioner Of Customs ... vs Unison Clearing Pvt. Ltd on 19 April, 2018
He has also drawn
the attention of the Court to 2018 (362) ELT 947 (Cal) (Ota
Falloons Forwarders Private Limited vs. Union of India),
2020 (373) ELT 323 (Cal) (Asian Freight vs. Principal
Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration)),
2018 (361) ELT 321 (Bom) (Principal Commissioner of
Customs (General), Mumbai vs. Unison Clearing Private
Limited), 2019 (368) ELT 41 (Telengana) (Shasta Freight
Services Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of
Customs, Hyderabad), and 2022 (380) ELT 60 (Bom)
(Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai vs. Srinivas
Clearing and Shipping (I) Private Limited) and contended
that, Bombay, Telangana and our High Court have held
that, the timeline for completion of proceedings under the
Regulations of 2013 were directory in nature.
M/S. Shasta Freight Services Pvt Ltd vs Principal Commissioner Of Customs, on 19 December, 2018
He has also drawn
the attention of the Court to 2018 (362) ELT 947 (Cal) (Ota
Falloons Forwarders Private Limited vs. Union of India),
2020 (373) ELT 323 (Cal) (Asian Freight vs. Principal
Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration)),
2018 (361) ELT 321 (Bom) (Principal Commissioner of
Customs (General), Mumbai vs. Unison Clearing Private
Limited), 2019 (368) ELT 41 (Telengana) (Shasta Freight
Services Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of
Customs, Hyderabad), and 2022 (380) ELT 60 (Bom)
(Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai vs. Srinivas
Clearing and Shipping (I) Private Limited) and contended
that, Bombay, Telangana and our High Court have held
that, the timeline for completion of proceedings under the
Regulations of 2013 were directory in nature.
The Commissioner Of Customs (General) vs Srinivas Clearing And Shipping (I) Pvt. ... on 27 August, 2021
He has also drawn
the attention of the Court to 2018 (362) ELT 947 (Cal) (Ota
Falloons Forwarders Private Limited vs. Union of India),
2020 (373) ELT 323 (Cal) (Asian Freight vs. Principal
Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration)),
2018 (361) ELT 321 (Bom) (Principal Commissioner of
Customs (General), Mumbai vs. Unison Clearing Private
Limited), 2019 (368) ELT 41 (Telengana) (Shasta Freight
Services Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner of
Customs, Hyderabad), and 2022 (380) ELT 60 (Bom)
(Commissioner of Customs (Gen), Mumbai vs. Srinivas
Clearing and Shipping (I) Private Limited) and contended
that, Bombay, Telangana and our High Court have held
that, the timeline for completion of proceedings under the
Regulations of 2013 were directory in nature.
Santon Shipping Services vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 13 October, 2017
13. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent has
submitted that, there is a difference of opinion amongst the
High Courts with regard to the issue as to whether, the time
period for completing the enquiry and submitting the
enquiry report was mandatory or directory. He has drawn
the attention of the Court to 2017 SEC online Mad 7084
(Santon Shipping Services vs. Commissioner of
Customs), 2018 (360) ELT 879 (Del) (Necko Freight
Forwarders Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cus.