2023 (2) TMI 679 - HC - Customs

Violation of principles of natural justice - relied upon documents had not been provided to respondent - non-grant of opportunity to cross-examine the persons whose statements were relied upon - whether in fact the respondent had used the portal itself as has been stated by the respondent in its letter dated 09.11.2018 sent in response to the Show Cause Notice dated 30.08.2018? - HELD THAT - After some arguments, learned counsel for the parties state that there are several aspects of the matter which have not been considered by the learned CESTAT as the same had possibly not been advanced before the learned Tribunal. The impugned order is set aside and the respondent s appeal is restored with the learned CESTAT to decide afresh.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Customs Tribunal's order allowing respondent's appeal due to violation of natural justice principles, absence of Show Cause Notice, respondent's access to portal used by another person, violation of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, CESTAT's failure to examine various aspects, controversy over respondent's portal usage, confusion in respondent's stand, proportionality of punishment, consent to set aside impugned order and restore appeal for fresh consideration by CESTAT.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the Customs Tribunal's order allowing the respondent's appeal, citing violation of natural justice principles and absence of a Show Cause Notice. The appellant argued that the respondent's access to the portal by another person breached Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. The main question raised was whether the CESTAT was correct in setting aside the original order without considering all aspects of the case.

The appellant contended that the respondent's admission of using the portal through another person was a clear violation of regulations. However, the respondent claimed confusion in understanding and stated that it had not permitted such access. The CESTAT's failure to examine these conflicting claims raised concerns about the thoroughness of the decision-making process.

The controversy over the respondent's portal usage further complicated the matter, with conflicting statements from the respondent in different communications. The issue of proportionality of the punishment imposed on the respondent was also raised, questioning the severity of the penalty given the circumstances.

Ultimately, both parties agreed to set aside the impugned order and restore the respondent's appeal for fresh consideration by the CESTAT. The court emphasized that all rights and contentions of the parties were reserved and requested the CESTAT to expedite the proceedings, ideally concluding within four months from the current date.