2011 (9) TMI 166 - HC - Customs

CHA licence - the Petitioner has challenged the validity of an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on 7 July 2011 by which the Customs House Agents Licence of the Petitioner has been revoked in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 22(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The licence of the Petitioner was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs and on 29 October 2009, a chargesheet was issued containing four Article of Charges. On 23 December 2010, the Enquiry Officer exonerated the Petitioner of the charges. The Petitioner thereupon filed representations before the Commissioner of Customs on 6 January 2011 and 18 February 2011 in respect of the enquiry report. By his order dated 7 July 2011, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order by which he differed with the report of the Enquiry Officer and ordered revocation of the licence. - Refused to grant interim relief - petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order revoking Customs House Agents' Licence by the Commissioner of Customs.
2. Interpretation of Regulation 22 regarding the Commissioner's power to differ with the Enquiry Officer's report.

Issue 1: Validity of the order revoking Customs House Agents' Licence by the Commissioner of Customs
The petitioner challenged the order revoking their licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs. The sequence of events involved the suspension of the licence, issuance of a chargesheet, exoneration by the Enquiry Officer, and subsequent disagreement by the Commissioner leading to the revocation of the licence. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner lacked the authority to differ with the Enquiry Officer's report, citing a previous Division Bench judgment. The Regulation 22 outlines the procedure for suspension or revocation of a licence, including notice issuance, submission of defence statement, enquiry by Assistant Commissioner, report preparation, representation submission, and final decision by the Commissioner. The court acknowledged the scheme of Regulation 22, emphasizing the Commissioner's role as the final decision-maker after the enquiry process. The court expressed a need to reconsider the previous judgment's view that the Commissioner cannot differ with the Enquiry Officer's findings, stating that the Commissioner, as the ultimate authority, should have the power to disagree after ensuring natural justice principles are followed.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Regulation 22 regarding the Commissioner's power to differ with the Enquiry Officer's report
The court highlighted the need for a larger bench to examine two key issues: whether the Commissioner is entitled to differ with the findings of the Deputy or Assistant Commissioner's report under Regulation 22, and whether the Commissioner has the authority to disagree with the Enquiry Officer's report. The court disagreed with the previous Division Bench's view that the Commissioner lacks the power to differ with the enquiry report, asserting that the ultimate decision-maker should have the discretion to disagree after complying with natural justice principles. The court emphasized that differing with the report should be based on issuing a notice, providing an opportunity to show cause, and recording reasons for the disagreement. The matter was referred to the Chief Justice for further directions, denying the petitioner's request for ad interim relief to resume business.

This detailed analysis of the judgment outlines the issues, the court's interpretation of Regulation 22, and the need for a larger bench to reconsider the Commissioner's authority to differ with the Enquiry Officer's report.