2013 (9) TMI 832 - HC - Customs

Powers under Regulation 21 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 Appellant was prohibited to work as Custom House Agent Held that - The appellant had not been given an opportunity to show cause and even the relevant statements of the concerned persons relied upon by the said authority were not furnished, there was a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the order passed by the Commissioner, Customs, Kandla itself be treated as show cause notice and the appellant be given an opportunity of being heard on furnishing the relevant statements, which the Commissioner, Customs, Kandla had relied upon in the order and thereafter the Commissioner, Customs, Kandla to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and on its own merits.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding prohibition to work as Custom House Agent at specific locations without opportunity to show cause.

Detailed Analysis:
The Tax Appeal was filed challenging an order passed by the Central Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which upheld a decision by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs prohibiting the appellant from working as a Custom House Agent at specific locations. The Commissioner's order was based on Regulation 21 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. It was noted that the appellant was not given an opportunity to show cause before the Commissioner's decision, and the relevant statements relied upon were not provided to the appellant.

The court recognized the lack of due process in the Commissioner's decision and the importance of providing the appellant with an opportunity to be heard and access to the relevant statements. Both parties agreed that the Commissioner's order should be treated as a show cause notice, and the appellant should be given a chance to respond after receiving the relevant statements. The Commissioner was directed to pass a fresh order based on the appellant's submissions and merits of the case, independently and without influence from previous orders.

The respondent's counsel assured the court that the statements relied upon by the Commissioner would be provided to the appellant within two weeks. The appellant was granted two weeks to respond with a detailed reply. The Commissioner was instructed to consider the appellant's submissions and pass an appropriate order after giving a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The order prohibiting the appellant was to remain in effect during this process, with the final decision to be made based on the appellant's submissions and the merits of the case.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the agreement that the appellant would be given a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations and that a fresh order would be passed by the Commissioner based on the appellant's submissions and the legal merits of the case, ensuring a just and transparent process.