2023 (3) TMI 1177 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs broker licence - dismissal of request for cross-examination - regulation 22(7) and 20(1) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 - HELD THAT - It certainly fails in appeal to logic and reason that a licence, issued under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 that has been revoked by competent authority accompanied by forfeiture of security deposit, can, in the same metaphorical breath, be revived by the same authority for being subjected to revocation and forfeiture of deposit once again. Nor can it don the saving grace of rational purpose in such sequential detriment unless, at best, it had occurred to the licensing authority that one of the two erasures lacked sufficient foundation to sustain or, at worst, that customs brokers are fair game for whimsical scattering of retribution. The patent nonapplication of mind in, thus, merging two separate, and independent, proceedings for reasons not adduced, and incomprehensible, should not pass unnoticed. In the circumstances in which the appellant approached the Tribunal on the former occasion, viz., unanticipated revocation despite favourable findings in inquiry report, with no premonition of the justification likely to be appropriated for extinguishment of licence, neither would it have been necessary to visit the statements of the persons till responding to disagreement memo nor to impugn those statements in appeal before the Tribunal then. Hence, such cavalier dismissal of request for cross-examination affects the credibility of the disagreement memo - In combining both the proceedings and, that too, of one which had been remanded by the Tribunal, specifically directing that the deficit, in the not so usual circumstances of supplanting of inquiry findings, be bridged, with another that was on entirely different facts and imputation of breach of obligations, the licencing authority has desecrated the sanctity of higher judicial authority, and compromised the impugned order thereby, warranting status quo ante for revisit of each, separately, for shedding the taint of extraneous influence and prejudiced disposal. Matter remanded back to the licensing authority for fresh decisions - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of 'customs broker' license under CHALR, 2004 regulations.

Analysis:
The appellant challenged the revocation of their 'customs broker' license under regulation 22(7) and 20(1) of CHALR, 2004, by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The proceedings involved two separate cases initiated based on offense reports from 2008 and 2010. The first case, after remand by the Tribunal, saw disagreement with the inquiry report findings, while the second case awaited the decision of the Commissioner based on an inquiry report. The disposal of these proceedings by the licensing authority raised concerns as each case should stand independently, and revocation erases the license and jurisdiction of the authority. The Tribunal noted the lack of justification for merging two distinct proceedings and the non-application of mind by the licensing authority in this regard.

The Tribunal highlighted the importance of procedural fairness in such cases governed by Customs Act, 1962 provisions. It criticized the licensing authority for revoking and then reviving the license for subsequent revocation without valid reasons, questioning the rationality behind such actions. The Tribunal emphasized that each proceeding based on offense reports should be treated separately, and the licensing authority cannot resume jurisdiction for another revocation without proper appellate sanction. The failure to apply proper reasoning and merging of two unrelated proceedings without justification raised serious concerns about the decision-making process.

Regarding the request for cross-examination of witnesses, the Tribunal noted the licensing authority's rejection of the request as a dilatory tactic and emphasized the importance of procedural rights. The Tribunal found the dismissal of the request for cross-examination as affecting the credibility of the disagreement memo and raised doubts about the fairness of the proceedings. The Tribunal stressed the need for adherence to procedural fairness and the right to cross-examine witnesses in such cases to ensure a transparent and just decision-making process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded both proceedings back to the licensing authority for fresh decisions. The Tribunal emphasized strict compliance with the earlier order of the Tribunal and the need to revisit each case separately to remove any taint of extraneous influence or prejudiced disposal. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in such matters.