Customs Appeal No. 47 of 2016 with Notice of Motion No. 1376 of 2016. Case: Principal Commr. of Cus. (General) Vs Ratnadip Shipping Pvt. Ltd.. Bombay High Court

Case Number:Customs Appeal No. 47 of 2016 with Notice of Motion No. 1376 of 2016
Party Name:Principal Commr. of Cus. (General) Vs Ratnadip Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
Counsel:For Appellant: Shri Pradeep S. Jetly and For Respondents: Shri Anil Balani
Judges:S.C. Dharmadhikari and Dr. Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, JJ.
Issue:Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130
Citation:2016 (339) ELT 63 (Bom.)
Judgement Date:July 18, 2016
Court:Bombay High Court


  1. This is Revenue''s appeal challenging an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai, dated 6­8­2015 [2015 (330) E.L.T. 488 (Tribunal)].

  2. The Tribunal allows the respondents'' appeal in part.

  3. Mr. Jetly would submit that this appeal raises substantial questions of law, and particularly those which are framed and formulated by the Revenue.

  4. He would submit that this is a serious case of the respondents assisting the importers. The importers have defrauded the Revenue and by winning over the trust and confidence of the concerned officials. These importers achieved this through the respondents/Customs House Agents. Therefore, the Revenue had rightly proceeded against the respondents for lack of due care and utter negligence. These are all intentional and deliberate acts and hence, it cannot be said that the respondents were innocent.

  5. We are unable to accept this argument of Mr. Jetly for the simple reason that the appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record has been done by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was dealing with an appeal of the respondents/Agents. That challenged the revocation of their license for breach of Regulation 13(d), 13(e), and 13(n) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The Tribunal found that the charges under Regulation 13(d) and 13(e) cannot be held to be proved. The Tribunal has assigned reasons for arriving at that conclusion. We have been taken through that part of the Tribunal''s order, and particularly the reasons in Paras 7, 7.1 and 7.2 of the Tribunal''s order.

  6. We find...

To continue reading