COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS versus MIS K. M. GANATRA & CO.

Citation: [2016] 1 S.C.R. 162 · Decided: 14-01-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
[2016] l S.C.R. 162 
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 
v. 
MIS K. M. GANATRA & CO. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2940 of2008) 
JANUARY 14, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND N. V. RAMANA, JJ.] 
Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 -
Regulations JO, 13, 14 - Misuse of Customs House Agent licence 
(CHA) issued in favour of respondent - Transfer of licence by 
respondent and was a habitual offender in the same manner -
Cancellation of license by Commissioner of Customs - However, 
direction for restoration of licence after expiry of three years from 
the date of suspension of the licence by the tribunal - High Court 
upheld the order - On appeal, held: Transfer of licence in 
contravention of the Regulations is a serious violation - Misconduct 
reflects a chain of acts and thus, the discretion exercised by the 
tribunal is inappropriate - In view of the important position of CHA 
in the Custom House, misconduct is to be seriously viewed - Orders 
of High Court and tribunal set aside and that of the Commissioner 
E 
restored - Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 -
Regulations 12, 13( b ), 13( d), 20(1 )( c), 13(n). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The tribunal can dislodge or confirm or modify 
the order. The vesting of jurisdiction with the tribunal by the 
F 
statute is beyond any pale of controversy. When a jurisdiction is 
exercised, it has to be exercised in accordance with law, regard 
being had to the factual matrix of the case. The tribunal having 
been conferred the power to modify the order, restricting the 
period of revocation would definitely come within the sweep of 
the said power. As regards the issue whether the said jurisdiction 
G has been properly exercised in the instant case, on a perusal of 
the order passed by the Commissioner, it is clearly perceptible 
that there has been number of violations by the respondent. The 
enquiry report which formed the plinth of the order of the 
Commissioner demonstrates that by virtue of the transfer of the 
H licence in contravention of the Regulations, on many an occasion, 
162 
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS v. MIS K. M. GANATRA & CO. 
163 
immense financial loss has been caused to the revenue. As the A 
factual matrix would exposit, it is a serious violation. The 
misconduct reflects a chain of acts. In such a situation, the 
discretion exercised by the tribunal is inappropriate. [Para 14] 
[172-D-G]] 
1.2 In *Noble Agency case the tribunal observed that the 
B 
Customs House Agent (CHA) occupies a very important position 
in the Custom House. The Customs procedures are complicated, 
the importers have to deal with a multiplicity of agencies viz. 
carriers, custodians as well as the Customs. The importer would 
find it impossible to clear his goods through these agencies 
without wasting valuable energy and time. The CHA is supposed 
C 
to safeguard the interests of both the importers and the Customs. 
A lot of trust is kept in CHA by the importers/exporters as well 
as by the Government Agencies. To ensure appropriate discharge 
of such trnst, the relevant regulations are framed. Reg 14 of the 
Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations lists out D 
obligations of the CHA. Any contravention of such obligations 
even without intent would be sufficient to invite upon the CHA 
the punishment listed in the Regulations. As such the misconduct 
has to be seriously viewed. The orders of the High Court and the 
tribunal is set aside and that of the Commissioner is restored. 
[Para 15, 16] [172-G-H; 173-A-D] 
Noble Agency v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 
2002 (142) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. - Mumbai) - approved. 
Case Law Reference 
E 
2002 (142) E.L.T. 84 (Tri. - Mumbai) 
approved. 
Para 15 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2940 
of2008 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2007 of the High Court 
. of Judicature at Bombay in Customs Appeal No. 71 of2007 
V. Mahana, B. V. Niren, Binu Tamta, B. Krishna Prasad for the 
Appellant. 
V. M. Doiphode, Rajesh Kumar, Krishana Kumar R. S., K. K. L. 
Gautam for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
H 
164 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] l S.C.R. 
DIPAK MISRA, J. l. The respondent, Mis. K.M. Ganatra & 
Co., was granted a Regular Customs House Agent (CHA) licence under 
Regulation l 0 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, l 984 
(for brevity 'the 1984 Regulations') framed under Section 146 of the 
Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity 'the Act'). While the respo

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.