2018 (1) TMI 435 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - revocation of CHA License - jurisdiction - Held that - while the Commissioner of Customs is vested with powers under Regulation 23 to take urgent action if the situation warrants. The minimum requirements of the principles of natural justice are to be complied with. The charge against the appellant on the preliminary stage is that they have transacted business on behalf of non-existing export firms. It is necessary to inform the appellant that which are of those firms now subjected to investigation for possible violation. This is a basic requirement without which the post decisional hearing will not carry any conviction - the impugned order passed did not comply with the basic requirements of principles of natural justice and apparently the required particulars are not available to the Original Authority for examination even for an order of prohibition - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Prohibition of appellant from operating as customs broker at Delhi Customs Stations based on Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013 without providing specific details of alleged violations leading to non-compliance with principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The appellant, a licensed customs broker, was prohibited from operating at Delhi Customs Stations by the Commissioner of Customs, invoking Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013, due to alleged involvement with fictitious exporting firms. The appellant contended that the prohibition lacked specific reasons and failed to disclose the exporters' names or details of violations, hindering their defense. The absence of crucial particulars during the post decisional hearing violated principles of natural justice, rendering the process unfair. The Commissioner's decision was based on information from DRI regarding the appellant's dealings with non-existent export firms through a middleman, as confirmed by a statement from the appellant's employee. However, the appellant was not informed of the specific firms under investigation, impeding their ability to respond effectively.

The Tribunal noted the lack of essential information provided to the appellant, such as the names of the exporting firms involved, which was necessary for a fair hearing and defense. The post decisional hearing, despite being conducted, did not fulfill the basic requirements of natural justice, as the appellant was not given the opportunity to address the allegations against them. The Tribunal emphasized that while the Commissioner had the authority to take urgent action under Regulation 23, adherence to principles of natural justice was imperative. The appellant's inability to defend themselves due to the absence of specific details was deemed a violation of fair procedure. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the prohibition order, emphasizing the need for the appellant to be provided with preliminary details before any further action is taken. The decision highlighted the importance of ensuring a fair and transparent process in regulatory actions against individuals or entities, emphasizing the fundamental principles of natural justice.