Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal rules in favor of Appellant, overturns license revocation and penalty

        M/s. B.K. Clearing Agency Versus Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport), Kolkata

        M/s. B.K. Clearing Agency Versus Commissioner of Customs (Administration & Airport), Kolkata - TMI Issues Involved:
        1. Violation of Regulation 1(4) of CBLR, 2018.
        2. Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018.
        3. Violation of Regulation 10(m) of CBLR, 2018.
        4. Violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018.
        5. Violation of Regulation 13(12) of CBLR, 2018.
        6. Revocation of CB license.
        7. Forfeiture of security deposit.
        8. Imposition of penalty.

        Summary:

        1. Violation of Regulation 1(4) of CBLR, 2018:
        The Department alleged that the Appellant transferred all clearance works to Arup Ghosh, who misused the license. Evidence showed payments were routed through LG Enterprises, owned by Arup Ghosh's wife. The Appellant argued that Arup Ghosh acted as an intermediary and there was no license transfer. The Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's argument, stating that the internal payment arrangement does not constitute a license transfer. Thus, no violation of Regulation 1(4) was established.

        2. Violation of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018:
        This regulation requires a Customs Broker to advise clients to comply with Customs Act provisions. The Department claimed the Appellant failed to do so. The Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the shipping bill in question was filed by Just Logistic-1, not the Appellant. Therefore, the allegation of violating Regulation 10(d) was not sustainable.

        3. Violation of Regulation 10(m) of CBLR, 2018:
        The Department alleged the Appellant did not perform duties with efficiency and speed. The Tribunal found no evidence supporting this claim, as the Appellant had cleared 81 shipping bills without any objections from the Department. Thus, the allegation of violating Regulation 10(m) was unsubstantiated.

        4. Violation of Regulation 10(n) of CBLR, 2018:
        This regulation obligates the Customs Broker to verify the correctness of IE Code, GSTIN, and the functioning of the client at the declared address. The Appellant argued they had obtained all necessary documents. The Tribunal referred to the Anax Air Services Pvt Limited case, concluding that the Customs Broker is not required to physically verify the client's address. The Appellant's reliance on government-issued documents was deemed sufficient. Hence, the allegation of violating Regulation 10(n) was not sustainable.

        5. Violation of Regulation 13(12) of CBLR, 2018:
        This regulation holds the Customs Broker responsible for the conduct of their employees. The Department alleged the Appellant failed in this duty. The Tribunal found that Arup Ghosh, a G-card holder, attended the clearance work without objections from the Department. Therefore, the Appellant could not be held responsible for any violations committed by Just Logistic-1. Thus, the allegation of violating Regulation 13(12) was not proven.

        6. Revocation of CB License:
        Given the findings that the Appellant did not violate the cited regulations, the Tribunal concluded that the revocation of the CB license was not justified.

        7. Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
        Since the Appellant was found not to have violated the regulations, the forfeiture of the security deposit was deemed incorrect.

        8. Imposition of Penalty:
        Similarly, the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 50,000 was found to be unwarranted.

        Conclusion:
        The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, concluding that the Appellant did not violate Regulations 1(4), 10(d), 10(m), 10(n), and 13(12) of CBLR, 2018. Consequently, the revocation of the license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty were not sustained. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found