2018 (5) TMI 793 - HC - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - goods which were fully fitted air-conditioner, but declared as part of air-conditioner - whether the decision of the sanctioning authority can be interfered by some external agency and owing to the pressure of the external agency, the sanction order without any new material could be issued? - Held that - power of review is possible only when there is a provision explicitly under law. As far as the order according sanction is concerned, once it is rejected, it could not be reviewed without any fresh material. The sequence of communication which has been referred would clearly indicate that what was expressed by the Commissioner of Customs vide his letter dated 13.08.2013 is not an order but only an opinion. Nowhere it is stated that he had applied his mind and arrived at a conclusive decision for not according sanction or refusal to accord sanction. Whereas in the subsequent communication dated 30.08.2013, this Court could see that the competent authority has stated after applying his mind, consider that prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner to accord sanction to prosecute. This expression is conspicuously absent in the earlier communication dated 13.08.2013. This Court hold that on the factual matrix, there is no two sanction orders passed by the same authority, without any material. The earlier communication is only a letter of opinion seeking further course of action has been expressed. Whereas, the second communication is the order issued after complete exercise of application of mind. Therefore, this Court find no merits in the writ petition - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.

Summary

Issues involved:
Petition seeking quashing of proceedings against the petitioner for abuse of official position in the Customs Department based on mis-declaration of goods leading to revenue loss. Challenge to the sanction order issued by the Commissioner of Customs after intervention by CVC. Comparison of earlier communication expressing doubt with subsequent sanction order. Interpretation of the role and responsibilities of an examiner in contrast to an assessing officer.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the petition filed to quash proceedings against the petitioner, an Examiner in the Customs Department, accused of mis-declaration of goods causing revenue loss. The petitioner challenged the sanction order issued by the Commissioner of Customs, contending that it was erroneous and illegal. The Court examined the sequence of events leading to the sanction order, emphasizing the importance of fresh material for review. It highlighted the role of the CVC in advising sanction based on available evidence.

The key contention was whether the decision of the sanctioning authority could be influenced by external agencies without new material justifying a change in view. The Court cited the settled principle that a rejected sanction order cannot be reviewed without fresh material. It meticulously analyzed the communications between the competent authority, CVC, and the final sanction order to determine the validity of the decision-making process.

A crucial aspect of the judgment was the distinction drawn between the roles of an examiner and an assessing officer in the Customs Department. The Court differentiated their responsibilities and noted the ongoing legal challenges related to similar cases. It scrutinized the communication from the Commissioner of Customs and the subsequent sanction order to ascertain the application of mind by the competent authority.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the earlier communication was merely an opinion seeking further action, while the subsequent sanction order was a conclusive decision after careful consideration. It found no merit in the petitioner's argument and dismissed the writ petition. The judgment underscored the significance of a thorough review process by the competent authority before issuing sanction orders in cases of alleged misconduct or abuse of official position.