9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenging order of Joint Secretary to the Government of India dismissing revision applications, imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act on cargo agents for short landing, appeal before Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), invoking revisional jurisdiction of the Government of India, breach of principles of natural justice. Analysis: The judgment involves two petitions challenging an order passed by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, where revision applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed, confirming the orders of the lower appellate authority and adjudicating authority. The petitions concern the imposition of penalties under Section 116 of the Customs Act on cargo agents for short landing. The facts of both petitions are similar, leading to a common judgment. The petitioners, as Ship and Forwarding Agents, were involved in a case where short landing of cargo was reported, leading to the imposition of penalties. The petitioners were not served with show cause notices, and the penalties were erroneously confirmed against them without examining their locus to challenge the orders of adjudication. The liability for short landing was incorrectly imposed on the petitioners, who were cargo agents, contrary to guidelines that assign such liability to carriers. The judgment highlights the breach of natural justice in holding the petitioners liable for penalties without proper service of notices or examination of their role in the matter. The petitioners, dissatisfied with the orders, appealed before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and invoked revisional jurisdiction of the Government of India under Section 129DD of the Customs Act, without success. The petitioners then approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, contending that the impugned orders breached natural justice and wrongly imposed penalties on them as cargo agents. The High Court, after considering the submissions, found that the petitioners were not served with show cause notices and were not called upon to explain the short landings. The appellate and revisional authorities failed to examine whether the petitioners had the standing to challenge the adjudication orders, leading to erroneous confirmation of liability against them. The judgment quashed and set aside the impugned orders against the petitioners, holding them not liable for penalties imposed under Section 116 of the Customs Act. In conclusion, the High Court allowed both petitions, making the rule absolute in favor of the petitioners and setting aside the impugned orders. No costs were awarded in the matter. The judgment emphasizes the importance of upholding principles of natural justice and correctly attributing liabilities in customs matters, ensuring fair treatment of parties involved.
|
