Varun Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Varun Forwarders vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 16, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/20428

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/20428
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: Jan 16, 2001
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Varun Forwarders

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2001)(75)ECC86

Excerpt

.....and abilities.certainly, if the custom house agent cannot even reply to the custom house in time, whether he would be able to deal with the requests of his clients for prompt clearance seems questionable. however, that itself is no ground for pre-emptory suspension of his licence. after all, the appellant had been licensed, after verifying his knowledge and experience.3. the suspicion that the custom house agent permitted others to use his licence again is no ground for suspending the licence. such an act is premature and hasty. the provisions of regulation 21(2) are to be invoked in cases where immediate action is necessary. we do not find the mere suspicion, without a shred of evidence to support even a prima facie view, sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the continuance of custom house agent is so undesirable that its immediate suspension was called for.4. accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.we make it clear that our order must not be so construed as to impinge upon any investigations that the department may carry out with regard to the activities of this appellant, or as imposing any restraint upon the commissioner in exercise of his powers under any of the provisions of the regulations in accordance with law.

Full Judgment

1. The reasons forthcoming from the Commissioner's order for suspending the licence issued to it under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, are these. Despite issue of two reminders, the licensee did not come forward with records that were asked for verifying the genuineness of the request made by it for issue of passes to its employees. The number of passes requested seemed to the department to be in excessive in relation to the volume of work conducted by the assessee, and led to the inference that the licensee permitted some other person to use the licence, which required investigation.

2. We agree that the delay by the custom house agent in producing the information called for reflects on his competence and abilities.

Certainly, if the custom house agent cannot even reply to the custom house in time, whether he would be able to deal with the requests of his clients for prompt clearance seems questionable. However, that itself is no ground for pre-emptory suspension of his licence. After all, the appellant had been licensed, after verifying his knowledge and experience.

3. The suspicion that the custom house agent permitted others to use his licence again is no ground for suspending the licence. Such an act is premature and hasty. The provisions of Regulation 21(2) are to be invoked in cases where immediate action is necessary. We do not find the mere suspicion, without a shred of evidence to support even a prima facie view, sufficient for a reasonable person to conclude that the continuance of custom house agent is so undesirable that its immediate suspension was called for.

4. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

We make it clear that our order must not be so construed as to impinge upon any investigations that the department may carry out with regard to the activities of this appellant, or as imposing any restraint upon the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under any of the provisions of the Regulations in accordance with law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Varun Forwarders vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Right to Information