9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 1461 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - allegation is that Commissioner of Customs (AA) issuing notice of hearing is the same person and same officer who has filed the alleged offence report against the petitioner customs broker and has passed the interim order of suspension - Suspension of petitioner s licence - HELD THAT - This writ petition is disposed of by directing the Chief Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs concerned to appoint another officer having the same rank to hear the case of the petitioner relating to suspension of his licence. Time for personal hearing on the basis of the aforesaid impugned notice dated 22nd November, 2022 is extended by 30 days from date. For the limitation purpose the period from the date of initial notice dated 22nd November, 2022 till the date of issuance of fresh notice for personal hearing shall be excluded.
Issues: Challenge of post decisional hearing notice on suspending license due to bias of the adjudicator.
In this judgment by the High Court of Calcutta, the petitioner challenged a notice of post decisional hearing regarding the suspension of their license, citing bias concerns. The petitioner argued that the Commissioner of Customs (AA) issuing the notice was the same person who had filed the offense report against them and had already passed an interim order of suspension. The court acknowledged the well-settled principle that no person can be a judge in their own case to avoid potential bias. Consequently, the court directed the Chief Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs to appoint another officer of the same rank to hear the case, ensuring impartiality in the proceedings. The court extended the time for personal hearing by 30 days from the date of the order and excluded the period from the initial notice to the issuance of the fresh notice for limitation purposes. It was emphasized that the appointed authority must provide a speaking and reasoned order in compliance with the law. The court clarified that it did not delve into the merits of the suspension order, emphasizing that the authority handling the case must strictly adhere to legal procedures. Additionally, the officer who issued the challenged notice was deemed ineligible to proceed based on that notice due to the identified bias concerns.
|
