Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.30 seconds)
Cochin-Cus vs Chakiat Agencies on 18 September, 2024 cites

M/S. Cargomar vs Union Of India on 6 February, 2018

21. On the other hand, this Court is of the opinion that the nature of order passed under Regulation 23 with a non obstante clause therein is a more serious and drastic provision to check and prevent with immediate effect the on going illegal activities by the Customs Brokers. That is why an Page 5 of 10 C/20867/2017 overriding and pervasive power has been conferred upon the learned Commissioner of Customs to immediately prohibit any Customs Brokers from working in one or more Sections of the Customs Station if he finds that the Customs Broker has not fulfilled his obligations as laid down in Regulation 11 which inter alia lays down several obligations contained in Clause (a) to (o) of Regulation 11 and as submitted at bar by the learned counsel for the Revenue. Clause 11 (e) inter alia enjoins upon the Customs Broker to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information which he imparts to a client with reference to any work related to clearance of cargo or baggage. Therefore, the Customs Broker cannot completely disentangle himself or distance himself from the mis- declaration made on behalf of the importers or by the importers themselves. While working under these Regulations, he undoubtedly acts as an agent of the Importer and his acts bind the Importer as the Principal. The purposes of these Regulations are obviously to prevent evasion of custom duties and illegal activities and declarations to evade duties to be checked and various consequences in these Regulations have been provided for including "prohibition" from functioning, suspension of licence which is India-wide permission or even cancellation thereof. Regulation 23 does not in its own terms provide for any temporary or permanent prohibition. The said prohibition by the terms of Regulation 23 can continue even for an indefinite period. While the suspension and revocation of licence completely bar and ban the business of the Customs Brokers on all- India basis, the "prohibition" under Regulation 23 may have the effect only for a particular Section or Sections of the particular territorial jurisdiction of the Customs Station. The non obstante provisions of Regulation 23 to prohibit a Customs Broker from working in any Section of the particular territory of Customs Department, appears to have been enacted to put in place the effective measures against the illegal activities and evasion of duties and that is why the procedure of giving of a prior notice and opportunity of hearing appears to have not been deliberately provided for in the said Regulation 23. Nonetheless, the remedial measure to an aggrieved person is provided for in the Scheme of the Act and Regulation 21 itself.
Karnataka High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - V Kothari - Full Document

Collector Of Central Excise vs Kashmir Conductors on 4 July, 1997

20. The decision of the Larger Bench in Kashmir Conductors (supra) has been referred to and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Central Excise v. Rallis India Ltd. - 2002 (142) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.). The decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Bill Forge Pvt. Ltd. being the decision of the Page 8 of 10 C/20867/2017 jurisdictional High Court and in the context of the fact that the entire cause of action, the transactions in issue, the territory within which the appellant- assessee conducts its business and has its registered office and whereat proceedings were initiated and culminated, constitutes the operative law, for the parties to this appeal. Though the Hon'ble High Courts of Madras, Bombay and Chhattisgarh are seen to have taken a contrary view, have distinguished and were not persuaded to accept the ratio expounded by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, this would not result in eclipse of the precedential vitality of the jurisdictional High Court's ruling, since while a High Court is at liberty to distinguish a persuasive decision of another High Court, the same would not amount to an overruling of the said decision nor operates to operate eclipse the precedential value of the other High Court's ratio insofar as it applies as an exposition of law within the territorial limits of that High Court."
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Atma Steel (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 22 January, 1985

If the jurisdictional High Court has not expressed any view in regard to the subject matter and there is conflict of views among other High Courts, then the Tribunal will be free to formulate its own view in the light of Atma Steels P. Ltd. case; however, there is a decision of only one High Court in regard to disputed interpretation or proposition of law, the Tribunal is bound to follow that order since it is not at liberty to disregard the solitary High Court decision.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 46 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next