Customs Appeal No. 21 of 2015 with Notice of Motion No. 895 of 2015. Case: Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs Natraj Shipping Agency. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Customs Appeal No. 21 of 2015 with Notice of Motion No. 895 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, Adv. and For Respondent:Shri R.V. Desai, Senior Advocate with R.B. Pardeshi and A.M. Khare i/b. M/s. KRP Legal, Advs. |
| Judges | S.C. Dharmadhikari and B.P. Colabawalla, JJ. |
| Issue | Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Regulation 13(a) |
| Citation | 2016 (332) ELT 237 (Bom) |
| Judgement Date | November 23, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Order:
-
At the hearing of this Notice of Motion (NMA/895/2015), by consent of both sides, we take up the Appeal itself for admission.
-
The Appeal of the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench dated 20th June, 2014 [2014 (308) E.L.T. 103 (Tri.-Mumbai)]. Mr. Jetly appearing in support of this Appeal would submit that the Tribunal seriously erred in overruling the order-in-original dated 18th April, 2013. That order could not have been set aside and by a one paragraph reasons. Apart from the inadequacy and insufficiency of the reasons, the Tribunal missed the point that the order-in-original holds the Customs House Agent guilty of violation of Regulation 13(a) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The Customs House Agent owe an obligation to the Department. The Department looks to him for he is the link or chain connecting the importer to the Revenue/Department. He has to satisfy himself that the importer is a genuine and bona fide person. That some documents were handed over to the Respondent does not mean that the import is valid and legal. The importer himself was a person involved in flagrant violation of the law. The Customs House Agent should not have assisted him in this manner. In that regard, our attention is invited to the order-in-original and particularly paragraphs appearing at page 126 of the paper book, namely, paragraphs 20, 21, 22 and 23.
-
On the other hand, Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Agent would submit that the Tribunal''s order may be short, but it is correct. The factual and legal background has been noted. The Tribunal held that the order-in-original fails to take note of a relevant and germane fact. That is that import documents like bill of lading, invoices, packing list and GATT declaration were handed over to the Respondent Agent duly signed. Thus, the original authority letters from M/s. Bombay Traders aurhotising the Respondent, along with these documents have been handed over. The Commissioner does not term the signatures on the same to be forged or fabricated or not genuine. Thus, these documents are not termed as bogus or fake. In these circumstances, the Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law and deserves to be dismissed.
-
We have, with the assistance of both Counsel, perused the short order of the Tribunal reversing that of the Commissioner. The principal charge was...
To continue reading
Request your trial