Renewal of a Customs House Agent licence was held administrative, not adjudicatory, under the licensing regulations. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal and upheld CESTAT's rejection of its challenge to the renewal order as not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20.06.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNA KUMAR
C.M.A.No.2969 of 2010 M.P.No.1 of 2010
Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
.. Appellant
versus
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944, against the Final Order No.838 of 2009, dated 14.07.2009, on the file of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006.
For Appellant : Mr.Sundareswaran For 1st Respondent : Mr.S.Murugappan For 2nd Respondent : Tribunal JUDGMENT (Judgement of this Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J.)
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Final Order No.838 of 2009, dated 14.07.2009, passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), South Zonal Bench, Chennai 600 006, dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue.
“Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble CESTAT in the Auro Trans Case, and also after analysis of their performance indicators for Chennai, it therefore emerges that the CHA/Applicant is very much eligible for renewal of their licence issued under Regulation 10(2) of the erstwhile CHALR, 1984 read with Public Notice No.59/94, dated 17.05.94, subject to fulfillment of other procedural requirements that may be required to be complied with as per Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.”
“3. On examination of the above Order in Original, it appears that the above order of the Commissioner (Seaport –
Import), Chennai, is not proper and merits review in view of the following:
(a) the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble CESTAT in the Auro Trans case would be applicable only in cases where the issue of renewal had come up before the enactment of the CHALR, 2004 and
(b) in terms of the clarifications issued under Regulation 10, Sl.No.2 of Annexure I of Circular No.42/2004-Cus, dated 10.06.2004 in F.No.502/4/2004-Cus.VI (PL.I) of the CBEC, MoF, for licences issued under regulation 10(2) of CHALR 1984 and renewed for 5 years just before issue of CHALR, 2004, renewal can be done only till the validity period of the main licence.
(i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Commissioner is legal and proper and whether the said order should be set aside.”
“2. I have heard both sides. It has already been held by the Tribunal in the case of A.S.Vasan & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2008 (230) ELT 374], that an order relating to renewal of CHA licence is administrative in nature and not a quasi-judicial order against which an appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has held that an appeal does not lie before the Tribunal following the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M.Dutta Agency v. Commissioner [1998 (1) LCX 77] and Tribunal's decision in P.Cawasji and Co [2000 (119) ELT 606] and G.P.Jaiswal [2008 (226) ELT 707]. The Tribunal's order in A.S.Vasan & Sons cited supra has been upheld by the Bombay High Court as seen from 2009 (238) ELT 217.
Hyderabad – 2009 (238) ELT 671, I reject the appeal of the Revenue as not maintainable before the Tribunal.”
(1) Whether the order of CESTAT in the matter of CHALR, 2004 under the Customs Act, 1962, considering it as an administrative matter, is correct as per law?
(2) “Is not the order of the tribunal passed in Auro Trans case merged with the order of this Hon'ble Court passed in W.P.No.5678 of 2010 and cannot be a precedent?
“88. The Customs authorities are not a 'court' in the strict sense of the term. The question is - did they act quasi-judicially. If they did, certainly, the writ may go.
"It seems to me that the true position is that when the law under which the authority is making a decision, itself requires a judicial approach, the decision will be quasi-judicial. Prescribed forms of procedure are not necessary to make an inquiry judicial, provided in coming to the decision the well recognised principles of approach are required to be followed. In my opinion, the conditions laid down by Slesser, L. J., in his judgment correctly bring out the distinction between a judicial or quasijudicial decision on the one hand and a ministerial decision on the other"
“129D. Powers of Board or Commissioner of Customs to pass certain orders:-
(1) The Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs may, of its own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which a Commissioner of Customs as an adjudicating authority has passed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such Commissioner or any other Commissioner to apply to the Appellate Tribunal for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs in its order.
(2) The Commissioner of Customs may, of his own motion, call for and examine the record of any proceeding in which an adjudicating authority subordinate to him has pas sed any decision or order under this Act for the purpose of satisfying himself as to the legality or propriety of any such decision or order and may, by order, direct such authority to apply to the Commissioner (Appeals) for the determination of such points arising out of the decision or order as may be specified by the Commissioner of Customs in his order.
(3) The Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall, where it is possible to do so, make order under sub-section (1) or sub -section (2), within a period of six months, but not beyond a period of one year, from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority.
(4) Where in pursuance of an order under subsection (1) or sub -section (2), the adjudicating authority or any officer of customs authorised in this behalf by the Commissioner of Customs, makes an application to the Appellate Tribunal or the
Commissioner (Appeals) within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order under subsection (1) or sub-section (2) to the adjudicating authority, such application shall be heard by the Appellate Tribunal or the Commissioner (Appeals), as the case may be, as if such application were an appeal made against the decision or order of the adjudicating authority and the provisions of this Act regarding appeals, including the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 129A shall, so far as may be, apply to such application ”
“(1) The Commissioner of Customs may, subject to the provisions of regulation 22, revoke the licence of a Customs House Agent and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security, or only order forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, namely :-
(a) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under regulation 10;
(b) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the provisions of these regulations, within the
jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or anywhere else;
(c) any misconduct on his part, whether within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs or any where else which in the opinion of the Commissioner renders him unfit to transact any business in the Customs Station.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subregulation (1), the Commissioner of Customs may, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a report from investigating authority, suspend the licence of a Customs House Agent where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated.
(3) Where a licence is suspended under sub-regulation (2), notwithstanding the procedure specified under regulation 22, the Commissioner of Customs may, within fifteen days from the date of such suspension, give an opportunity of hearing to the Customs House Agent whose licence is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit either revoking the suspension or continuing it, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of hearing granted to the Customs House Agent.”
According to the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, the power exercised by the Commissioner of Customs, for suspending or revoking the licence, under Regulation 20, is quasi-judicial nature, whereas, the power exercised for grant of licence or renewal is administrative.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
“4. Invitation of application.- The Commissioner may invite applications for the grant of such number of licences as assessed by him, to act as Customs House Agents in the month of January every year by means of a notice affixed on the notice board of each Customs Station as well as through publication in at least two newspapers having circulation in the area of his jurisdiction specifying therein the last date of receipt of application. Such application shall be for clearance work within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner.
(2) If the applicant is a firm -
(a) the name and address of every partner of the firm, the firm"s name, and
(b) the name of the partner or the duly authorised employee, who will actually be engaged in the clearance of goods or conveyances through the customs.
(3) If the applicant is a company -
(a) the name of each director, manager, managing director, and
(b) the names of director, manager or the duly authorised employee, who will actually be engaged in the clearance of goods or conveyances through the customs.
The applicant or the person referred to in clause (b) of sub-regulations (2) and (3) of Regulation 5 as the case may be, shall prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioner that:
(a) the applicant is a graduate from a recognised University and is an employee of a licensee and that he possesses a permanent pass in Form G prescribed under regulation 20 and has the experience of work relating to clearance of goods through the Customs, for a period of not less than three years in the capacity of such a passholder :
Provided that the Commissioner may relax the possession of permanent pass in Form G to one year for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(b) the applicant has financial viability supported by a certificate issued by a Scheduled Bank or such other proof acceptable to the Commissioner evidencing possession of assets of the value of not less than Rs. 1 lakh in the case of applicants for the grant of licence in respect of any one of the Customs Stations at Bombay, Calcutta, Madras, Cochin, Kandla, Goa, Mangalore, Tuticorin or Visakhapatnam and not less than Rs. 50,000/- in the case of each of the other Customs Stations, situated at places other than those specified above :
Provided that in cases where a Commissioner"s jurisdiction extends to more than one Customs Station, the Commissioner may issue one licence for all the Stations or more than one such Station to be specified in the licence, waiving the need for separate compliance of the provisions of clauses (a) and (b) above for such additional Customs Stations. The Commissioner may also waive the need for separate compliance of the requirement of Regulation 11 in such cases :
Provided further that in places where there is more than one Commissioner exercising jurisdiction over different Customs Stations and Custom House Agents licensed under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1965 have been operating in the said Customs Stations on the basis of one licence, it shall be. open to such Agents to obtain a temporary licence under Regulation 8 from the Commissioner, other than the one who has issued them the
existing licence, without being required to comply with the requirements of Regulation 6 in regard to financial viability or the requirements as to fresh deposit in terms of Regulation 11.
On receipt of application under Regulation 5, the Commissioner may make enquiries for verification of the particulars set out in the application and also such other enquiries as he may deem necessary including enquiries about the reliability and financial status of the applicant.
(1) Any applicant whose application is received within the last date specified in Regulation 4 and who satisfies the requirements of Regulations 5 and 6, shall be permitted to operate as Custom House Agent at the Customs Station for which the application is made initially for the period of one year against temporary licence granted by the Commissioner in this regard in Form B.
Provided that when evidence is produced to the Commissioner that the applicant has already availed of two chances for qualifying in the written or oral examination prescribed in these regulations and would like to avail of the third chance as soon as the next examination is held in terms of Regulation 9 and that the applicant has been able to account for the minimum volume of work prescribed for such agents in the course of one year"s working, the Commissioner may extend the aforesaid period of one year for which the temporary licence has been granted by another six months or such further period not exceeding one year to enable the applicant to avail of the third chance for qualifying in the examination in terms of Regulation 9. While granting such extension, the Commissioner of Customs shall satisfy himself that the requirements of Regulations 10(l)(a) and 10(l)(b) had been fully met by the applicant.
(2) Any person, whose application for grant of temporary licence under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 8 is rejected by the Commissioner of Customs may represent to the Chief Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the case may be against such order rejecting the grant of a temporary licence, within 30 days of the communication of the impugned order.
(3) In case the number of applicants fulfilling the conditions prescribed under regulation 6 is more than the number of licences to be issued as assessed under regulation 4, the Commissioner may adopt seniority in
experience as "G" pass holder of such applicants as the criterion to give precedence to the applicants :
Provided that if more than one applicant has the same period of experience, the applicant who is older in age shall get precedence.
(1) The holder of a temporary licence in the case of an individual and the person or persons who will be actually engaged in the work of clearance of goods through customs on behalf of the firm or company holding a temporary licence, as the case may be, shall be required to qualify in examination, at the earliest opportunity. Such person or persons shall be eligible to appear in the examination as soon as a temporary licence is granted and shall be permitted to avail of three chances within a period of 2 years from the date of issue of the temporary licence on payment of prescribed examination fee of Rs. 500/- for each examination. -
(2) The examination referred to in sub-regulation (1) shall include a written and oral examination and will be conducted twice every year. Each applicant would be permitted to avail of a maximum of three chances to qualify in the said examination but all such chances should be availed of within a maximum period of 2 years from the date of grant of temporary licence.
Explanation: A person who qualifies in the written examination, but fails in the oral test linked to it, shall be treated as having failed in that chance; but he will not be required to appear in the written examination in the subsequent chances.
(3) The examination may include questions on the following:-
(o) the provisions of allied Acts including Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (18 of 1947), Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (46 of 1973), Indian Explosives Act, 1884 (4 of 1884), Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), Opium Act, 1878 (1 of 1878), Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940), Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1914 (2 of 1914), Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (2 of 1930) in so far as they are relevant to the clearance of goods through customs;
(p) procedure in the matter of refund of duty paid, appeals and revision petitions under the Act.
(4) The Commissioner shall also satisfy himself whether the licensee in Form B , See Form 48 in Part 5, if he is an individual, possesses, or in the case of a firm or company, the persons who will be actually engaged in the work relating to clearance of goods through customs on behalf of that firm or company, possess satisfactory knowledge of English and the local language of the Customs Station:
Provided that in the case of persons deputed to work exclusively in the docks, knowledge of English will not be compulsory. Knowledge of Hindi will be considered as an additional or desirable qualification.
(5) The holders of a regular licence under regulation 10 may authorise one of their employees or partners or directors, to appear for the examination referred to in sub-regulation (1), on behalf of such holders of regular licence in addition to the person of their agency who has passed the examination referred to in sub-regulation (1).
The Commissioner shall, on receipt of an application in Form C, grant a regular licence in Form D on payment of a fee of Rs. 5000/- to such holder of a temporary licence who qualifies in an examination referred to in Regulation 9 and whose performance is found to be satisfactory with reference, inter alia, to the following:-
(a) quantity or value of cargo cleared by such licensee conforming to norms as may be prescribed by the Commissioner;
(b) absence of instances of delay either in the clearance of goods or in the payment of duty for any reason attributable to such licensee and any complaints of misconduct including non-compliance of any of the obligations specified in Regulation 14.
(2) The Custom House Agents who are granted regular licences under Regulation 10, shall be eligible to work in all Customs Stations subject to fulfilment of the following requirements :
(a) the licensee shall make an application to the Commissioner of the concerned Customs Station where he intends to transact business for purposes of registering himself and his authorised staff;
(b) he fulfils the conditions stipulated in clause (b) of Regulation 6 relating to financial soundness and possesses the ability to provide adequate warehousing and transport facilities at the place of clearance of goods and production of evidence relating to availability of sufficient clientele at his disposal;
(c) he shall also be required to enter into a separate bond in Form D for due observation of these regulations and to furnish a separate Bank Guarantee for each Customs Stations as stipulated under Regulation 11; he shall produce evidence of knowledge of the local language of the Customs Stations, at which he wishes to conduct business;
(d) on fulfilment of the aforesaid conditions, the Commissioner of the Customs Station at which the licensee intends to transact business shall grant a licence in Form "D" authorising him to transact business at that Customs Station : Provided that no separate licence would be required in places where in addition to a Custom House handling imports by sea, there is also an International airport to handle imports by air even if under the jurisdiction of a different Commissioner.
(3) The Commissioner may reject an application for the grant of regular licence to act as Custom House Agent if the holder of the temporary licence fails to qualify in the examination in terms of Regulation 9, or the holder of temporary licence on evaluation of his performance in terms of Regulation 10 is not considered suitable due to any other reason to be stated in the order passed by the Commissioner.
(4) Any person aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner passed under sub-regulation (3) of regulation 10 may represent to [the Chief Commissioner of Customs or Chief Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, as the
case may be against such order within 30 days of the communication of the impugned order.
(5) The Chief Commissioner may, on his own motion or otherwise call for and examine the records of any proceedings in which the Commissioner has passed any order under sub-regulation (3) for the purpose of satisfying himself "as to the legality, propriety or correctness of such order and may pass such orders as he may deem fit. No order under this sub-regulation shall be made so as to prejudicially affect any person unless such person is given reasonable opportunity for making a representation and being heard in his defence, if he so desires."
(6) No order shall be made under sub-regulation (5) or sub-regulation (2) of regulation 8 in relation to an order passed by Commissioner under sub-regulation (3) or subregulation (1) of regulation 8, as the case may be, after the expiry of one year from the date on which such order was passed by the Commissioner.”
W.P.No.5678 of 2000, dated 30.03.2000 and W.P.No.402 of 2003, dated 17.04.2006. In the abovesaid circumstances, the Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import), Licencing Authority, has framed an issue for adjudication, as to whether, the 1st respondent is entitled to get the licence, issued by the Customs House, Chennai, renewed under Regulation 10(2), irrespective of the fact that the original licence at Vizag Customs was not renewed.
“(1) 150 documents (e.g., Bills of Entry, shipping Bills and baggage forms) per year.
OR (2) Clearance or shipment of 2000 packages per year. OR (3) Clearance or shipment of packages of value not less than Rs.10 Crores per year.
(4) Payment of duty not less than Rs.2 Crores per year.”
“Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble CESTAT in the Auro Trans Case, and also after analysis of their performance indicators for Chennai, it therefore emerges that the CHA/Applicant is very much eligible for renewal of their licence issued under Regulation 10(2) of the erstwhile CHALR, 1984 read with Public Notice No.59/94, dated 17.05.94, subject to fulfillment of other procedural requirements that may be required to be complied with as per Customs Act, 1962 and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder.”
Commissioner of Customs shall grant regular licence. As per Regulation 10(2), Custom House Agents, granted regular licences under Regulation 10, shall be eligible to work in all Customs Stations, subject to fulfilment of the following requirements :
(a) the licensee shall make an application to the Commissioner of the concerned Customs Station where he intends to transact business for purposes of registering himself and his authorised staff;
(b) he fulfils the conditions stipulated in clause (b) of Regulation 6 relating to financial soundness and possesses the ability to provide adequate warehousing and transport facilities at the place of clearance of goods and production of evidence relating to availability of sufficient clientele at his disposal;
(c) he shall also be required to enter into a separate bond in Form D for due observation of these regulations and to furnish a separate Bank Guarantee for each Customs Stations as stipulated under Regulation 11; he shall produce evidence of knowledge of the local language of the Customs Stations, at which he wishes to conduct business;
(d) on fulfilment of the aforesaid conditions, the Commissioner of the Customs Station at which the licensee intends to transact business shall grant a licence in Form "D" authorising him to transact business at that Customs Station : Provided that no separate licence would be required in places where in addition to a Custom House handling imports by sea, there is also an International airport to handle imports by air even if under the jurisdiction of a different Commissioner.
any proceedings in which the Commissioner has passed any order under regulation 10(3) for the purpose of satisfying himself "as to the legality, propriety or correctness of such order and may pass such orders as he may deem fit. No order under this sub-regulation shall be made so as to prejudicially affect any person unless such person is given a reasonable opportunity for making a representation and being heard in his defence, if he so desires.
“Every decision of the executive generally is a decision of fact and in most cases affects the rights of someone or the other. Because an executive authority has to determine certain objective facts as a preliminary step to the discharge of an executive function, it does not follow that it must determine those facts judicially. When the executive authority has to form an opinion about an objective matter as a preliminary step to the exercise of a certain power conferred on it, the determination of the objective fact and the exercise of the power based thereon are alike matters of an administrative character and are not amenable to the writ of certiorari.
........It seems to me that the true position is that when the law under which the authority is making a decision, itself requires a judicial approach, the decision will be quasi-judicial. Prescribed forms of procedure are not necessary to make an inquiry judicial, provided in coming to the decision the well-recognised principles of approach are required to be followed."
“7. It will thus be seen that a quasi-judicial decision is nothing but an administrative decision,
some stage or some element of which possesses judicial characteristics. The decision, whether quasi-judicial or administrative, is taken by the competent authority in the exercise of its discretion. But the distinguishing feature of the two kinds of acts is the mode or manner in which the opinion on the basis of which the act is done by the authority in the exercise of its discretion, is formed. The decision would be quasi-judicial if in reaching that decision the authority is required first to ascertain certain facts by means of evidence and is then free to take such action as it may think fit on the facts so ascertained.”
Dealing with grant of licence under the Tamil Nadu Arrack (Manufacture) Rules, 1981, a privilege, at Paragraph 40, the Hon'ble Apex Court, held as follows:
“40. There is nothing in the language of Rule 7 of the Rules to suggest that in refusing to grant the privilege, the Commissioner is obliged to act 'judicially'. The order refusing a licence under Rule 7 is purely an administrative or executive order and is not open to appeal or revision. There is no lis between the Commissioner and the person who is refused such privilege. The power of refusal of licence unlike the power to grant is not subject to any pre- condition.”
Tribunal. Per contra, on behalf of the licencee, contentions have been made, against an order, refusing to renew the licence, there is no provision to file an appeal and therefore, the Tribunal would not be a competent authority to hear an appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties therein and after considering the relevant provisions of the Act, 1962 and Regulations, governing licence, a learned single Judge of Calcutta High Court held as follows:
“I am of the view that the argument of Mr. Banerjee that an appeal lies under Section 129A(1)(a) of the Customs Act against the decision of the Additional Collector of Customs cannot be supported.”
“8. On the other hand, so far as Regulation 11(2) is concerned, it provides for renewal and while considering renewal, what has to be considered is, if the performance of the licensee is found to be satisfactory in terms set out under Regulation 11(2). These are the requirements after the licence has been granted. Application for grant of licence and for revocation of that licence are distinct and different. No appeal is provided under Section 11 whereas, an appeal is provided under Regulation 9(4) in those cases, where an application for licence is rejected under regulation 9(3). We are, therefore, clearly of the opinion that no appeal lies against the order of the Commissioner rejecting an application for renewal. It may be mentioned that in case of Customs House Agent licence, our attention was invited to the judgment of Calcutta High Court in M.Dutta Agency Commissioner of Customs 1998 (101) E.L.T. 581 (Cal.). It was contended before Calcutta High Court that the appeal would lie against the refusal to renew CHA licence. Considering the language of Section 129A (1)(a) of Customs Act, 1962, the learned Judge held that an appeal is provided against the suspension or revocation but not for refusal to renew CHA licence. We are clearly of the opinion that no appeal lies against the order rejecting an application for renewal. In absence of any other remedy it is open to this Court to exercise its extraordinary
jurisdiction in case where an application for renewal is rejected.”
(a) quantity or value of cargo cleared by such licensee conforming to norms as may be prescribed by the Commissioner;
(b) absence of instances of delay either in the clearance of goods or in the payment of duty for any reason attributable to such licensee and any complaints of misconduct including noncompliance of any of the obligations specified in regulation 14.
Regulation 12(3) states that the fee for renewal of a licence under sub-regulation (2) shall be Rs.3,000/-.
does not provide for any adjudication, either for grant of fresh licence or renewal.
Sd/Asst.Registrar
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, No.26, Shastri Bhavan Annexe Building, Haddows Road, Chennai 600 006.
svi(co) krd 9/8
C.M.A.No.2969 of 2010
2 issues framed by the court
Is grant or renewal of a Customs House Agent licence administrative rather than adjudicatory under the licensing regulations?
Was the Revenue's appeal to CESTAT against the order granting renewal of the Customs House Agent licence maintainable?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s.Auro Trans Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Customs, ChennaiReferred¶141
M/s.Auro Trans Maritime Services Pvt. Ltd., v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai reported in ELT 130 (Tribunal)
A.S.Vasan & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs (General), MumbaiReferred¶28
A.S.Vasan & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai [2008 (230) ELT 374] (Mum.)]
M.Dutta Agency v. CommissionerReferred¶28
M.Dutta Agency v. Commissioner [1998 (1) LCX 77 (Cal.)]
P.Cawasji and CoReferred¶28
P.Cawasji and Co's case [2000 (119) ELT 606]
G.P.JaiswalReferred¶28
G.P.Jaiswal's case [2008 (226) ELT 707]
Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement v. Soorajmull NagarmullReferred¶36
Assistant Collector of Customs for Appraisement v. Soorajmull Nagarmull reported in AIR 1952 Cal 656 = 56 CWN 453 = 2000 (125) ELT 328 (Cal.)
W.P.No.5678 of 2000, dated 30.03.2000Referred¶144
W.P.No.402 of 2003, dated 17.04.2006Referred¶144
Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S.AdvaniRelied on¶163
Province of Bombay v. Khushaldas S.Advani reported in AIR 1950 SC 222 · Who else cites this
Moti Miyan v. Commissioner, Indore DivisionRelied on¶166
Moti Miyan v. Commissioner, Indore Division reported in AIR 1960 MP 157 · Who else cites this
Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling CompanyRelied on¶170
Chingleput Bottlers v. Majestic Bottling Company reported in 1984 (3) SCC 258 · Who else cites this
M.Dutta Agency v. Commissioner of CustomsRelied on¶173
M.Dutta Agency v. Commissioner of Customs reported in 1998 (101) ELT 581
A.S.Vasan v. UOIRelied on¶177
A.S.Vasan v. UOI reported in 2009 (238) ELT 217 (Bom.)
Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate TribunalApplied¶186
Gajraj Singh v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal reported in 1997 (1) SCC 650 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 4 enactments
Commissioner of Customs (Exports)
M/s.Aren Shipping Agents (P) Ltd.
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench
S.MANIKUMAR
D.KRISHNA KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
