Sagar Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Rajasthan HC8 Jul 2024CW/9558/2024

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR…

What the court decided

AI extract

Sagar Shipping Services Vs Commissioner of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:28287-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9558/2024

¶4

Sagar Shipping Services, 121-A, Near Om Gas Godown, Jhalana, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Sole Properieter Shri Rishiraj Singh Chauhan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Commissioner Of Customs (Preventive), Jodhpur (Hqrs. At Jaipur), New Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Siddharth Ranka with Mr. Rohan Chatter
	Mr. Ashok Bansal
	Ms. Apeksha Bapna
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ajay Shukla with Mr. Raghav Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶11

Order

¶12

08/07/2024

¶13

AVNEESH JHINGAN,J (ORAL):-

¶14

This petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2024 suspending the license of the petitioner and show-cause notice dated 16.05.2024.

¶15

The brief facts are that the petitioner is Customs House Agent (for short ‘CHA’) and had dealt with import made by M/s Digen Traders, New Delhi through the forwarder M/s Transglobe Shipping Services, Gandhidham (for short ‘importer’). The import was made at Mundra Port and during verification, the goods were not found to be in accordance with the shipping documents. The Custom Authorities suspended the license of the petitioner qua the

¶16

[2024:RJ-JP:28287-DB]

¶17

[CW-9558/2024]

¶18

(2 of 3)

¶19

operation at Mundra Port and thereafter, forwarded the matter to Jaipur Authority as petitioner was registered at Jaipur.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similar imports were made by the importer which were handled by other CHA. It is further submitted that the petitioner “in the check listBill of entry for Home” had filed “No for green channel” and “Yes for First Check.” Thereby, making it mandatory for the Custom Authorities to verify the consignment. The contention is that with the suspension of the license, the business of the petitioner has been stopped.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice by way of filing present petition and on other hand, sought time to file reply. The contention is that the decision in the show-cause notice is being delayed by the petitioner by non filing of the reply. Further contention is that the importer was not found to be genuine and there was no place of business and the matter is being looked into from the angle with regard to the procedure adopted by the Custom Authorities for granting the registration to the importer.

¶22

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall file reply within ten days from today.

¶23

The present petition is being disposed of without commenting upon merits of the case with the direction to the respondent that in the eventuality of the petitioner filing reply within ten days, the proceedings in pursuance to the show-cause notice shall be decided within three weeks, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:28287-DB]

¶25

[CW-9558/2024]

¶26

(3 of 3)

¶27

There is no doubt that the petitioner shall not seek

¶28

unwarranted adjournments and co-operate in expeditious disposal.

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

Simple Kumawat /17

Whether Reportable: No

Sagar Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sagar Shipping Services v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive)

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Prakash Agroya S/O Late Shri Bansilal Agroya Vs Income Tax Officer

Hanuman Mineral and Grinding Mills, Vs State of Rajastan

Ashok Kumar Dusad S/O Shri Ram Sharan Dusad Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/S Merulands Insurance Services Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

World Trade Park Limited Vs Income Tax Officer

Santosh Devi, Vs State of Rajasthan