2018 (1) TMI 878 - HC - Customs

Forfeiture of CHA License - revocation of security deposit - penalty - time limitation of Inquiry Report - back dated inquiry report - Held that - the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report dated 14th November, 2017, before the restraint order was passed on 17th November, 2017. This report was served on the petitioner on 23rd November, 2017 vide communication posted on 22nd November, 2017 - The counter affidavit thus accepts and admits that the respondents had not furnished statements and other documents relied upon by them. These were partly furnished in the court on 7th December, 2017 and recently in the form of CD-ROM. Hard copy has also been furnished to the petitioner. The Inquiry Report dated 14th November, 2017 is quashed - A fresh inquiry would be held by the Inquiry Officer in terms of the the Regulations without being influenced by the earlier Inquiry Report - matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Show cause notice issued for contravention of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.
2. Inquiry proceedings and communication between parties regarding evidence and statements.
3. Allegation of backdating of the Inquiry Officer's report.
4. Non-furnishing of relied-upon documents and statements.
5. Court's decision on the quashing of the Inquiry Report and ordering a fresh inquiry.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company engaged in custom clearance services, received a show cause notice for violating Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The notice sought explanations and responses regarding potential license revocation, security forfeiture, and penalty imposition.

2. During the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner raised concerns about the clarity of the notice, non-disclosure of evidence and witnesses, and the reliance on statements under the Customs Act. The petitioner requested access to all evidence and submissions made several contentions.

3. The petitioner alleged that the Inquiry Officer's report was backdated, but the court did not delve deeply into this issue, focusing on other grounds for decision-making.

4. The respondents admitted to not furnishing all relied-upon documents and statements promptly. The court noted discrepancies in the respondents' claims regarding the issuance of a show cause notice by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and ordered a fresh inquiry due to the undisputed non-furnishing of crucial documents.

5. The court, considering the factual position and undisputed events, allowed the writ petitions, quashed the initial Inquiry Report, and directed a fresh inquiry without influence from the previous report. The petitioner was instructed to appear for the new inquiry, leaving the decision on cross-examination to the Inquiry Officer/authorities, emphasizing that the court did not comment on the merits. The writ petitions were disposed of without costs.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the parties' contentions, the court's observations, and the final decision rendered by the High Court.