2014 (10) TMI 509 - HC - Customs

De-Registration of license of CHA - Forfeiture of security - Held that - where the Commissioner disagrees with the enquiry report, he should record the reasons for disagreement and forward the same to the Customs House Agent for his comments before passing a final order - Ext.P6 shall be treated as show cause notice against the petitioner on disagreement entered by the respondent and the petitioner shall furnish his objection to the findings of disagreement, within a period of four weeks. The proceedings shall be finalised within a further period of three weeks. Status quo ante of Ext.P6 shall be maintained. - Writ disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
- Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs to decide the matter
- Opportunity of being heard for the petitioner before passing a final order
- Compliance with principles of natural justice in the decision-making process
- Requirement for communication of adverse findings to affected parties
- Necessity for the Commissioner to hear objections of the petitioner on decisions made by the Commissioner based on the enquiry officer's report
- Procedure to be followed when the Commissioner disagrees with the enquiry report

Analysis:

1. The writ petition was filed by an Authorised Courier under the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, challenging an order by the Commissioner of Customs de-registering the petitioner's license and ordering forfeiture of security. The Commissioner disagreed with the enquiry officer's report and passed the impugned order without communicating the findings and reasons for the different conclusion to the petitioner before the final decision.

2. The petitioner contended that the Commissioner of Customs lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter and that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the final order was made. The court emphasized that principles of natural justice must be upheld, especially when civil rights are at stake, requiring adverse findings to be communicated to affected parties before a final decision is taken.

3. The court highlighted that the power of the Commissioner to take a different view cannot override the right of affected parties to be informed of adverse findings. It was emphasized that even as a natural right, any contrary finding of fact necessitates notice to the petitioner before actions like de-registration are taken.

4. The respondent argued citing a previous judgment that the Commissioner was not required to hear the petitioner's objections on the findings of the enquiry officer. However, the court clarified that if the Commissioner disagrees with the enquiry report, reasons for disagreement must be recorded and forwarded to the affected party for comments before a final decision is made.

5. In conclusion, the court treated the impugned order as a show cause notice against the petitioner on the disagreement entered by the Commissioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish objections to the findings of disagreement within four weeks, and the proceedings were to be finalized within a further three weeks while maintaining the status quo ante of the impugned order. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.