Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Commissioner of Customs (General) Vs. Bharat Overseas Communicators

Commissioner of Customs (General) vs Bharat Overseas Communicators

Disposition Appeal dismissed Court Mumbai Decided Mar 24, 2006
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/355658

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Mumbai High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Custom Appeal No. 16 of 2006
Subject
Customs
Disposition
Appeal dismissed

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Customs
Outcome / disposition
Appeal dismissed
Acts & sections
Customs Act - Sections 124; Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs (General)

Advocate Vijay Kantharia, Adv.

Respondent

Bharat Overseas Communicators

Advocate S.N. Kantawala, Adv., i/b., ;Yogesh Rahora, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Customs Act - Sections 124; Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004
Reported In
2006(199)ELT800(Bom)

Excerpt

- order1. heard mr. vijay kantharia, the learned counsel for the appellant.2. it is admitted fact that show cause notice under section 124 of the customs act read with the customs house agents licensing regulations, 2004 was issued to the respondent proposing penal action for violation of customs act and customs house agents licence regulations. the said notice was admittedly issued in the month of january 2005. at the time of issuance of the show cause notice, the commissioner of customs (general) did not think it fit to exercise of power of suspension of customs house agents (cha) licence given to the respondent. after a gap of about 8 months, the commissioner of customs (general) passed an order suspending cha licence given to the respondent. the order of suspension does not record the circumstances which justified immediate suspension of the license pending enquiry, particularly when at the time of issuance of show cause notice for revocation of licence, suspension order was not issued.3. the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal, relying upon the judgment of calcutta high court in the case of kamal kumar agarwal v. union of india : 2004(171)elt301(cal) , held that the order of suspension of cha licence issued to the respondent cannot be sustained as the commissioner's order did not spell out that an immediate action was required to be taken in the matter.4. we find no error in the approach of the tribunal.5. the appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law.6. appeal is dismissed in limine.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard Mr. Vijay Kantharia, the learned Counsel for the appellant.

2. It is admitted fact that show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act read with the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 was issued to the respondent proposing penal action for violation of Customs Act and Customs House Agents Licence Regulations. The said notice was admittedly issued in the month of January 2005. At the time of issuance of the show cause notice, the Commissioner of Customs (General) did not think it fit to exercise of power of suspension of Customs House Agents (CHA) licence given to the respondent. After a gap of about 8 months, the Commissioner of Customs (General) passed an order suspending CHA licence given to the respondent. The order of suspension does not record the circumstances which justified immediate suspension of the license pending enquiry, particularly when at the time of issuance of show cause notice for revocation of licence, suspension order was not issued.

3. The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, relying upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India : 2004(171)ELT301(Cal) , held that the order of suspension of CHA licence issued to the respondent cannot be sustained as the Commissioner's order did not spell out that an immediate action was required to be taken in the matter.

4. We find no error in the approach of the Tribunal.

5. The appeal does not give rise to any substantial question of law.

6. Appeal is dismissed in limine.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial