{"id":115373,"date":"2006-02-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006"},"modified":"2018-01-25T21:59:39","modified_gmt":"2018-01-25T16:29:39","slug":"ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 03\/02\/2006 \n\nCoram \n\nThe Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN     \nand \nThe Hon'ble Mr. JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA       \n\nC.M.A.No.87 of 2006 \nand C.M.P.No.297 of 2006  \n\nM\/s. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd.,\nClassic Towers, 1547, Trichy Road,\nCoimbatore. \nrepresented by its Director,\nSri G.Balraj                            ...     Appellant\n\n-Vs-\n\n1.  Commissioner of Customs  \n     6\/7, A.T.D. Street,\n     Race Course Road,\n     Coimbatore  641 018.\n\n2.  Customs, Excise and Service \n     Tax Appellate Tribunal\n     South Zonal Bench,\n     1st floor, Shastri Bhavan Annexe,\n     Haddows Road, Chennai 6 \n     represented by its Registrar\n                                        ....  Respondents\n\n\n        Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section  130A  of  the  Customs\nAct, 1962 against the order dated 08.12.2005 in final order No.1539 of 2005 on\nthe  file  of  Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal\nBench at Chennai received by the appellant on 9.12.20 05.\n\n!For Appellant :  Mr.  Madhan Babu\n\n^For Respondents:  Mr.J.  Ravindran, CGSC \n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n<p>(Judgment of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J)    <\/p>\n<p>        By consent of both parties, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal  itself  is<br \/>\ntaken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  order  dated  8.12.2005<br \/>\ncommunicated to the appellant by proceedings dated  9.12.2005  made  in  final<br \/>\norder No.1539 of 2005 raising the following substantial questions of law:\n<\/p>\n<p>        i)  Whether  the  order  of respondents ordering interim suspension of<br \/>\nCustom House agency license as punishment is ultra vires Regulation 2 0(2)  of<br \/>\nthe Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004?\n<\/p>\n<p>        ii)  Whether  the Tribunal is correct in confirming interim suspension<br \/>\nof license in the absence of any  immediacy  for  suspension  as  mandated  in<br \/>\nRegulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004?\n<\/p>\n<p>        iii)  Whether  the  respondents  are  right  in  interposing two basic<br \/>\nconditions of prima facie case and  immediacy  of  action  as  mandated  under<br \/>\nRegulation  20(2)  of  the Customs House Agency License Regulations, 20 04 for<br \/>\nordering interim suspension of Customs House Agency License while the same are<br \/>\nindependent factors?\n<\/p>\n<p>        iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the interim suspension<br \/>\nwhen the basic criteria for suspension as mandated under Regulation  20(2)  of<br \/>\nthe Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004 is not satisfied?\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.1.   The  matter  arises  under  the  Customs House Agents Licensing<br \/>\nRegulations, 2004, Regulations framed exercising the  powers  conferred  under<br \/>\nSection  146(2)  of the Customs Act 1962, in the matter of granting licence to<br \/>\nthe Customs House Agents, namely, a person licensed under these regulations to<br \/>\nact as agent for the transaction of any business  relating  to  the  entry  or<br \/>\ndeparture  of  conveyances  or  the  import  or export of goods at any Customs<br \/>\nStation.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.2.  As per Clause 3 of the Regulation, no  persons  shall  carry  on<br \/>\nbusiness  as  a  Customs  House  Agent relating to the entry or departure of a<br \/>\nconveyance or the import or export of goods at any Customs Station unless such<br \/>\nperson holds a licence granted under the said regulation.   Clause  4  of  the<br \/>\nRegulation  provides  for invitation of applications for the grant of licence.<br \/>\nClause 5 prescribes the details to be provided in the application.   Clause  6<br \/>\nprescribes the conditions to be fulfilled by the applicant.  Clause 7 provides<br \/>\nthe procedure  for scrutiny of the application for licence.  Clause 8 empowers<br \/>\nthe Director General of Inspection to  conduct  an  oral  examination  of  the<br \/>\ndetails prescribed by the applicant before granting licence with regard to the<br \/>\nsubject matters mentioned thereunder.  After following the said procedure, the<br \/>\nlicence  shall  be  granted  by  the Commissioner of Customs under Clause 9 as<br \/>\nrequired under Clause 11 of the said Regulation.  Pursuant to which, the agent<br \/>\nis expected to execute a bond and furnish security.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.3.  As per clause 12, the licence thus granted under the  Regulation<br \/>\nis not  transferable.    Clause 13 prescribes the obligations to be discharged<br \/>\nmandatorily by the agent.  In the case of Agent or firm  or  company,  as  per<br \/>\nClause 14,15 and 16, the change of Directors and the constitution are required<br \/>\nto be  informed.    Clause  18 requires the agent to maintain the accounts and<br \/>\nClause 19 deals with the employment of persons.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  For the purpose of the above appeal, it is relevant to extract the<br \/>\nfollowing provisions, which deal with the  suspension  or  revocation  of  the<br \/>\nlicence:\n<\/p>\n<p>        20.   Suspension  of  revocation  of licence  (1) The Commissioner of<br \/>\nCustoms may, subject to the provisions of regulation 22, revoke the licence of<br \/>\na Customs House Agent and order for forfeiture of part or whole  of  security,<br \/>\nor only order forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following<br \/>\ngrounds, namely:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        (a) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply<br \/>\n        with any of the conditions of the bond executed<br \/>\n        by him under regulation 10;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>        (b) failure of the Customs House Agent to comply<br \/>\nwith any of the provisions of these regulations,<br \/>\n        within the jurisdiction of the said Commissioner<br \/>\n        of Customs or anywhere else;\n<\/p>\n<p>        (c) any misconduct on his part, whether within the<br \/>\n        jurisdiction of the said Commissioner of Customs<br \/>\n        or any where else which in the opinion of the<br \/>\n        Commissioner renders him unfit to transact any<br \/>\n        business in the Customs Station.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (2)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-regulation (1), the<br \/>\nCommissioner of Customs may, in appropriate cases where  immediate  action  is<br \/>\nnecessary,  suspend  the  licence  of  a  Customs House Agent where an enquiry<br \/>\nagainst such agent is pending or contemplated.\n<\/p>\n<p>        21.  Prohibition.- Notwithstanding anything  contained  in  regulation<br \/>\n22,  the  Commissioner  of  Customs  may prohibit any Customs House Agent from<br \/>\nworking in one or more sections of the Customs Station,  if  he  is  satisfied<br \/>\nthat  such  Customs House Agent has not fulfilled his obligations as laid down<br \/>\nunder regulation 13 in relation to work in that section or sections.\n<\/p>\n<p>        22.  Procedure for suspending or revoking licence under  Regulation  2<br \/>\n0-  (1)  The  Commissioner  of  Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the<br \/>\nCustoms House Agent stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend  or<br \/>\nrevoke  the  licence  and  requiring  the  said Customs House Agent to submit,<br \/>\nwithin such time as may be  specified  in  the  notice  not  being  less  than<br \/>\nforty-five   days,   to  the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  Customs  or  Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of  defense  and<br \/>\nalso  to specify in the said statement whether the Customs House Agent desires<br \/>\nto be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner or Customs or  Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner of Customs.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.1.   In  the instant case, the first respondent by proceedings dated<br \/>\n10.10.2005 having satisfied that immediate action is necessary to suspend  the<br \/>\nlicence  granted  to  the appellant, where an enquiry against the appellant is<br \/>\ncontemplated, by exercising the powers conferred under Regulation 20(2) of the<br \/>\nsaid Regulations enclosing the grounds on which the suspension pending enquiry<br \/>\nis proposed, called upon the appellant to submit their written explanation and<br \/>\nalso as to whether they wish to be heard in person in the matter.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.2.  In the order of suspension pending  enquiry,  even  dated,  made<br \/>\nunder  Section  20(2)  of  the  said  Regulation,  as referred to above, it is<br \/>\nmentioned that the petitioner had violated Regulations 13(a)(d)(e)  and  19(8)<br \/>\nand  also  prima  facie  satisfied  that  the  appellant\/agent  have  actively<br \/>\nconnived, colluded and helped to defraud the Government to the tune of  Rs.3.5<br \/>\ncrores  (approximately)  by  producing false documents, fraud certificates and<br \/>\nfradulent claims for non existing export companies.  As the money is yet to be<br \/>\nrecovered and the investigation has not yet completed, the Commissioner  prima<br \/>\nfacie satisfied that it is essential to cancel the licence.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.3.  It is further observed that in the investigation already carried<br \/>\non reveals that\n<\/p>\n<p>        (i)  the  Customs  House Agent has failed to obtain authorization from<br \/>\nhis clients for processing documents in Customs, hence it appears that the CHA<br \/>\nhas not complied with regulation 13(a) of CHALR, 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (ii) the Customs House Agent failed to advice his  clients  to  comply<br \/>\nwith  provisions  of  the  Customs Act 1962 and thus failed to comply with the<br \/>\nobligation caused upon them in terms of regulation 13(d) of the CHALR 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iii) the Customs House Agent failed  to  exercise  due  diligence  to<br \/>\nascertain  the  correctness  of any information with regard to work handled in<br \/>\nhis name thus it appears that the CHA has failed to comply with the obligation<br \/>\nunder regulation 13(e) of CHALR, 2004.\n<\/p>\n<p>        (iv) the Customs House Agent did not have  control  over  the  Customs<br \/>\nclearance  work  and  there  by failed to exercise supervision ensuring proper<br \/>\ncontact of the persons who transacted business.    Hence  the  CHA  apparently<br \/>\nfailed to comply with the provisions of regulation 19(8) of the CHALR, 2004<\/p>\n<p>and  thus  the  Customs  House  Agent  had  failed  to  comply  with the above<br \/>\nregulations.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.4.  For these reasons, the Commissioner having satisfied that  prima<br \/>\nfacie case exists warranting immediate action against the Customs House Agent,<br \/>\nexercising  the  power  conferred  under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House<br \/>\nAgents Licensing Regulations, 2004, passed  an  order  of  suspension  pending<br \/>\ncancellation proceedings.   Concededly, the appellant has also submitted their<br \/>\nwritten explanation to the notice dated 10.10.2005 on 10.11.2005 itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  Aggrieved against the order of suspension dated 10.10.2005 pending<br \/>\nenquiry for the proposed cancellation of the licence, the appellant  preferred<br \/>\nan  appeal  before the Customs, Excise, Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and the<br \/>\nTribunal by an order dated 8.12.2005, which is impugned in the present appeal,<br \/>\nconfirmed the order of suspension and directed the Commissioner of Customs  to<br \/>\npass  final  order  within  a  period  of four weeks from 8.12.2005 after duly<br \/>\nconsidering the explanation offered by  the  appellant  on  10.11.2005.    The<br \/>\nTribunal  also observed that if no final orders are passed as indicated above,<br \/>\nthe order of suspension pending enquiry would stand set  aside  automatically.<br \/>\nHence, the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  At the risk of repetition, we extract the substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw raised by the appellant in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n<p>        i)  Whether  the  order  of respondents ordering interim suspension of<br \/>\nCustom House agency license as punishment is ultra vires Regulation 2 0(2)  of<br \/>\nthe Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004?\n<\/p>\n<p>        ii)  Whether  the Tribunal is correct in confirming interim suspension<br \/>\nof license in the absence of any  immediacy  for  suspension  as  mandated  in<br \/>\nRegulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004?\n<\/p>\n<p>        iii)  Whether  the  respondents  are  right  in  interposing two basic<br \/>\nconditions of prima facie case and  immediacy  of  action  as  mandated  under<br \/>\nRegulation  20(2)  of  the Customs House Agency License Regulations, 20 04 for<br \/>\nordering interim suspension of Customs House Agency License while the same are<br \/>\nindependent factors?\n<\/p>\n<p>        iv) Whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the interim suspension<br \/>\nwhen the basic criteria for suspension as mandated under Regulation  20(2)  of<br \/>\nthe Customs House Agency License Regulations, 2004 is not satisfied?\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Mr.Madhan  Babu,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the appellant<br \/>\nraising the above substantial questions of law submits that the impugned order<br \/>\nof suspension amounts to an order of punishment by itself.  Incidentally,  the<br \/>\nlearned counsel submits that the procedure contemplated under Regulation 22 of<br \/>\nthe  said  Regulation,  namely,  a  notice  in writing is required to be given<br \/>\nbefore passing an order of suspension, has  not  been  complied  with  by  the<br \/>\nrespondent.   He  also  contends  that the order of suspension pending enquiry<br \/>\nsuffers from non application of mind by the respondents  with  regard  to  Reg<br \/>\nulation 20(2)  of  the  said Regulation, viz.  whether an immediate action for<br \/>\ninitiating such order of suspension pending enquiry  is  necessary  under  the<br \/>\nfacts and circumstances of the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   In  this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court<br \/>\nin the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1032261\/\">East West Freight Carriers (P) Ltd.  V.  Collr.    Of  Customs,<br \/>\nMadras<\/a> reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T.  79 (Mad.)<\/p>\n<p>        10.   There  cannot  be  any dispute as to the proposition of law laid<br \/>\ndown in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1032261\/\">East West Freight Carriers (P)  Ltd.    V.    Collr.    Of<br \/>\nCustoms, Madras<\/a> reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T.  79 (Mad.), that the commissioner<br \/>\nshould  satisfy  himself  that  too  apply his mind before passing an order of<br \/>\nsuspension under Regulation 20(2) as to whether immediate action is  necessary<br \/>\nor not, where enquiry against the Agent is pending or contemplated.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   In  the instant case while the first respondent proposed to pass<br \/>\nan order of suspension has clearly observed in paragraph  10  and  11  of  the<br \/>\norder  what facts and circumstances of the case warranted the first respondent<br \/>\nto initiate the proceedings for suspension of the licence, which warranted the<br \/>\nfirst  respondent  to  pass  an  order  of  suspension  pending   cancellation<br \/>\nproceedings under  Regulation  20(2).  Once the respondents are satisfied that<br \/>\nprima facie case is  made  out  to  initiate  cancellation  proceedings  under<br \/>\nRegulation  22(1),  consequently  an  order  passed under Regulation 20(2) for<br \/>\nsuspending  the  licence  pending  such  cancellation  proceedings  cannot  be<br \/>\nconstrued  as  a  punishment  by itself, inasmuch as the power conferred under<br \/>\nRegulation 20(2) empowers the first respondent to pass an order of  suspension<br \/>\npending  enquiry,  having  satisfied that an immediate action is necessary for<br \/>\nthe reasons mentioned in the order itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.  An order of suspension, pending enquiry, passed under  Regulation<br \/>\n20(2)  cannot  be  construed  as  an  order  of  punishment nor as an order of<br \/>\nsuspension,  which  deals  only  the  substantial  punishment,   intended   in<br \/>\nRegulation 22(1) nor such an order of suspension, pending enquiry, would stand<br \/>\nas  a  stigma  on  the  appellant  while the respondent proposed to pass final<br \/>\norders by following the procedure prescribed under  Regulations.    Therefore,<br \/>\nthe  reference to Section 22(1) of the said Regulation and the context made in<br \/>\nthat regard by the learned counsel for  the  appellant  is  totally  misnomer,<br \/>\ninasmuch  as  the  interim  suspension  passed  under Regulation 20(2) pending<br \/>\ncancellation proceedings shall not an order of punishment.\n<\/p>\n<p>        13.  Accordingly, answering all the questions of law, we  do  not  see<br \/>\nany reason  to interfere with the order of the Tribunal dated 8.12.200 5.  The<br \/>\nappeal stands dismissed.  However, the dismissal of this appeal in  any  event<br \/>\nwill  not  be  construed  as  prejudicial  to the appellant in the proceedings<br \/>\npending before the authorities.  No costs.  Consequently, C.M.P.No.297 of 2006<br \/>\nis also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index :Yes<br \/>\nInternet:Yes<\/p>\n<p>sl<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  Commissioner of Customs<br \/>\n6\/7, A.T.D.  Street, Race Course Road,<br \/>\nCoimbatore  641 018.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Registrar<br \/>\nCustoms, Excise and Service<br \/>\nTax Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\nSouth Zonal Bench,<br \/>\n1st floor, Shastri Bhavan Annexe,<br \/>\nHaddows Road, Chennai  6  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 03\/02\/2006 Coram The Hon&#8217;ble Mr.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN and The Hon&#8217;ble Mr. JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA C.M.A.No.87 of 2006 and C.M.P.No.297 of 2006 M\/s. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd., Classic Towers, 1547, Trichy Road, [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-115373","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-25T16:29:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-25T16:29:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":2125,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-25T16:29:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-25T16:29:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-25T16:29:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006"},"wordCount":2125,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006","name":"M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-25T16:29:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-sindhu-cargo-services-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-customs-on-3-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Sindhu Cargo Services Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 February, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115373","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=115373"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/115373\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=115373"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=115373"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=115373"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}