9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 380 - HC - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of the security - Imposition of penalty - Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 - whether the principal commissioner or commissioner of customs, as the case may be, is bound to accept the inquiry report, if it is in favour of the Custom Broker or can he disagree with the same - Held that - Inquiry report is in favour of the petitioner and exonerates him. Mere communication of the inquiry report, which is in favour of the petitioner and without communication of adverse material and/or reasons for difference, would not enable the petitioner to rebut, qualify or explain the adverse material and show cause against the proposed adverse action. Principles of natural justice required that before an adverse decision was taken against the petitioner, the petitioner should have been communicated the adverse material/reasons for disagreement. The fact that the reasons for disagreement were not communicated to the petitioner prior to the adverse decision being taken by the Commissioner of Customs, there was clearly a violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Customs should have recorded the reasons for disagreement and forwarded the same to the petitioner for his comments before passing the impugned order. Because of failure to do so, the impugned order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. - impugned order cannot be sustained - commissioner to decide the matter afresh - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Customs is bound to accept the inquiry report if it is in favor of the Customs Broker. 2. Whether the Commissioner of Customs must communicate reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report to the Customs Broker before passing an adverse order. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Acceptance of Inquiry Report by Commissioner of Customs - The petitioner sought quashing of the order-in-original dated 01.09.2015, which revoked the Customs House Agent (CHA) license, forfeited the security deposit, and imposed a penalty under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR, 2013). - The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Customs should have accepted the favorable inquiry report and revoked the suspension of the license. - The court examined Regulations 20 and 22 of the CBLR, 2013, which outline the procedure for revocation of the license and imposition of penalties. - Regulation 22(7) states that the Commissioner of Customs, after considering the inquiry report and any representation made by the Customs Broker, can pass such orders as he deems fit, indicating that the Commissioner has the discretion to disagree with the inquiry report. - The court referenced the Full Bench decision in M/s. Delta Logistics v. Union of India, which clarified that the Commissioner is not bound to accept the inquiry report and can pass orders based on his independent assessment. - Therefore, the court concluded that the Commissioner of Customs is not bound to accept the inquiry report if it is in favor of the Customs Broker. Issue 2: Communication of Reasons for Disagreement - The petitioner contended that if the Commissioner of Customs disagreed with the inquiry report, the reasons for disagreement should have been communicated to allow the petitioner to respond. - The court emphasized the principles of natural justice, which require that any adverse material or reasons for disagreement must be communicated to the Customs Broker to provide an opportunity to rebut, qualify, or explain the same. - In the present case, the inquiry report exonerated the petitioner, but the Commissioner of Customs did not communicate the reasons for disagreement before passing the adverse order. - The court held that the failure to communicate the reasons for disagreement and adverse material to the petitioner before the adverse decision was a violation of the principles of natural justice. - The court answered that it is mandatory for the Commissioner of Customs to communicate the adverse material/reasons for disagreement to the Customs Broker and require him to show cause/represent against the proposed adverse order. Conclusion: - The impugned order dated 01.09.2015 was quashed due to the violation of principles of natural justice. - The order was treated as a communication of the reasons for disagreement, and the petitioner was given two weeks to furnish objections and show cause/represent against the proposed adverse order. - The Commissioner of Customs was directed to finalize the proceedings within four weeks thereafter. - The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
|
