2020 (11) TMI 554 - HC - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker Licence - imposition of penalty - contention in the Writ Petition is essentially that if the respondent wanted to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, then the notice issued to the petitioner in that regard should have clearly indicated that the respondent was proposing to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer - HELD THAT - Ext.P9 order passed by the respondent cannot be legally sustained. When an Enquiry Report is furnished before the respondent in proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 and the Enquiry Report is in favour of the petitioner, then the notice subsequently issued by the respondent ought to have indicated very clearly as to whether the respondent was proposing to accept the Enquiry Report or not accept the same. Only such a notice would have indicated to the petitioner the future course of action proposed against him by the respondent. Inasmuch as there was no notice issued to the petitioner, whereby the respondent indicated that he was not ready to accept the Enquiry Officers Report, the petitioner cannot be faulted for having assumed that the Enquiry Report that was in his favour would be accepted by the respondent. The respondent are directed to pass a fresh order after issuing a notice to the petitioner giving the reasons as to why the respondent proposes not to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer in Ext.P5 Report - respondent shall pass the fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to revocation of customs broker license and imposition of penalty based on disagreement with Enquiry Officer's report without proper notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a licensed Customs Broker, challenged the revocation of their license and imposition of a penalty by the respondent without proper notice indicating disagreement with the Enquiry Officer's report. The petitioner argued that the respondent should have clearly indicated any disagreement before taking adverse action. The respondent, in their defense, detailed the events leading to the impugned order but did not dispute the lack of a clear proposal of disagreement in the initial notice to the petitioner.

The court, after hearing both parties, considered the facts, submissions, and relevant judgments. The judge opined that the order revoking the license could not be legally sustained. It was highlighted that when an Enquiry Report favors the petitioner, any subsequent notice should clearly state whether the respondent agrees or disagrees with the report. The absence of such a notice indicating disagreement led to the petitioner assuming the report would be accepted. This lack of clarity violated the rules of natural justice, causing surprise to the petitioner. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice explaining the reasons for not accepting the Enquiry Officer's findings. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to respond and have a personal hearing before the respondent issues a new order within three months from the date of the judgment.