Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)
M/S Pt Varghese & Company vs Commissioner Of Customs - Cochin on 25 February, 2026 cites

Mns Exports Private Limited vs Commissioner Of Customs on 8 April, 2005

Thus, there is an admitted violation of the Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018. As regarding violation of Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018, appellant has to exercise due diligence while ascertaining the correction of the information. Though the illegality was committed by one of the employees of the appellant in connivance with the overseas cargo movers, the appellant being a Customs Broker having unblemished record over a period of time, cannot be held personally liable for the said violation to proceed against him under the Provisions of CBLR, 2018. Further, as held by this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. MNS Export Private Limited (supra), fraud committed by an agent which does not fall within the authority, does not affect the principle. Fraud committed by employee, which was not within the knowledge and consent of the company, company is not liable for acts and omissions of Page 10 of 12 Customs Appeal No. C/20005/2025 his employees in terms of provisions of 13(12) or 10(e) of the CBLR, 2018. Further, as regarding violation of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR, 2018, we find that the said provision is also not applicable in such a case where personal presence of the passenger is mandatory before the Customs Officer while clearing the goods. Thus, identification, Import and Export (IE) code, etc., is not relevant in such a situation and it is for the Customs Officer to verify the background of the passenger directly and no failure can be alleged against custom broker in such situation.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commr.Of Customs vs M/S K.M.Ganatra & Co. on 14 January, 2016

11. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) for the Revenue reiterated the finding in the impugned order and submits that Customs Broker adopted a systematic approach to exploit the benefits of Rule 6 (Transfer of Residence), Baggage Rules, 2016 in connivance with overseas cargo companies. Customs Broker also acknowledged about non-bonafide and consolidated nature of impugned baggage. The inquiry officer in his report dated 06.09.2024, has very clearly given his findings in respect of each regulation and concluded that Sri.C. G. Prathapan, 'G' Card holder of the Appellant, was aware that the consignment was consolidated cargo of multiple consignees and that he had canvassed and cleared the consolidated baggage. Sri. C.G Prathapan had admitted this fact in his statement obtained under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority also very clearly brought out in this finding that the appellant has failed to discharge their duties as Customs Broker; not followed the procedure as prescribed and violated Regulations 10 (a), 10 (d), 10 (e), 10 (n) and 13 (12) of the CBLR, 2018. The referred case laws do not come to the rescue of the Customs Broker because the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs K.M. Ganatra and Co., Page 8 of 12 Customs Appeal No. C/20005/2025 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sriaanshu Logistics Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General), CUSAA 17/2021 & CM APPL.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 18 - Cited by 10 - D Misra - Full Document

Sri Kamakshi Agency, Represented By Its ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Custom House, ... on 12 October, 2000

11107/2021 and the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sri Kamakshi Agency Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Madras, 2001(129) ELT29 (MAD) in cases which are of similar gravity to the present case upheld the revocation of Customs Broker license. Learned AR further submits that the present proceedings being of civil nature run on the principle of preponderance of probability and the charges against the Customs Broker are not required to be proved with mathematical precision. Moreover, in view of the legal responsibility cast on the Customs Broker making him responsible for acts and omissions of his employees under Regulation 13(12) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The evidences collected in the subject case as discussed in the Show Cause notice clearly highlights the attempt to exploit Rule 6 (Transfer of Residence) of Baggage Rules, 2016 by the Customs Broker in collusion with the cargo companies based abroad. All that the law requires is the establishment of such a degree of probability that a prudent man may on its basis believe in existence of the fact in issue. Therefore, even if some of the facts remain undisclosed during investigation, it does not tantamount to the absence of such malicious act as all other evidence go against the Appellant. Learned AR also relied on the following decisions : -
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

M/S. Falcon Air Cargo & Travels (P) Ltd. vs Cc, New Delhi on 31 May, 2001

7. Learned Counsel further draws our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Kunal Travels (Cargo) Vs. CC, reported in 2017 (354) ELT 447 (Del.) wherein while dealing with the obligations of CHA had held that; if the goods do not corroborate with declaration, it cannot be deemed to be mis- declaration by CHA and hence there could be no guilt, wrong, fault or penalty on the appellant and If any doubt about the issuance of the IE code is concern, it is upto the department to take appropriate action, while the IE Code is the locus standi of importer/exporter and the CHA is not expected to do a background check of the importer/exporter who approaches them for facilitation services in exports and imports and the documents prepared by the CHA is based on the instructions/ documents received from the importer/exporter and therefore any wrong information provided by the importer/exporter cannot be attributable against the CHA.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 7 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1   2 Next