9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 207 - HC - CustomsPrinciples of natural justice - revocation of CHA License - this fact remains uncontroverted that the appellant was asked to submit a reply to the show cause notice dated 12th March, 2012 which they omitted to do. There was also no request on their behalf for personal hearing - HELD THAT - The appellant cannot challenge the order of the adjudicating authority on the ground of breach of the principles of natural justice. But nonetheless, they are entitled to prefer an appeal from the said order, on merits. We give a chance to the appellant to test their case on merits. Should they file an appeal from the order of the Commissioner before the Tribunal within four weeks from date the Tribunal shall proceed to hear the same on merits, condoning the delay.
Issues Involved: Appeal against judgment and order dated 15th November, 2016 regarding alleged breach of natural justice by the Commissioner of Customs in revoking customs house agency license under Regulation 20(1) of the Regulations of 2004.
Analysis: 1. The High Court admitted the appeal against the judgment and order dated 15th November, 2016, passed by a Learned Single Judge of the Court. 2. The issue involved was addressed quickly as the appeal was heard by the Court today with the consent of both parties, dispensing with formalities. 3. The Court found it challenging for the appellant to establish the case of alleged breach of natural justice by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant failed to submit a reply to the show cause notice and did not request a personal hearing, leading to the Commissioner proceeding ex parte. 4. While the Court noted that the appellant cannot challenge the order on the grounds of natural justice, they are entitled to prefer an appeal on merits. 5. The Court acknowledged the delay in filing the statutory appeal and preserved the appellant's right to appeal, giving them a chance to present their case on merits by filing an appeal before the Tribunal within four weeks. 6. The Tribunal was directed to hear the appeal on merits, condoning the delay, and dispose of it within six months, allowing the appellant to submit written submissions and evidence while ensuring a fair hearing. 7. The Tribunal was also given the authority to remand the matter back to the Commissioner if deemed necessary. 8. The appeal (APOT No. 72 of 2017) and the connected application (GA No. 705 of 2017) were disposed of by the Court.
|
