1999 (10) TMI 385 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues: Challenge to revocation of Custom House Agents Licence under Section 21 of CHALR, 1984.

In this case, the appellants challenged the revocation of their Custom House Agents Licence under Section 21 of CHALR, 1984. The order revoking the license was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, which the appellants contested through an appeal. The main issue revolved around the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the inquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants argued that they were not given adequate opportunities for cross-examination and were not provided with copies of certain statements relied upon in the inquiry report. The Commissioner upheld the inquiry officer's report without a detailed discussion on the submissions made by the appellants, leading to a lack of thorough consideration of the facts presented by the appellants.

The appellants contended that the inquiry process was flawed as they were not allowed to cross-examine individuals mentioned in the report or access certain statements crucial to their defense. The appellants emphasized the importance of cross-examination to establish the truth regarding the employment status of the individuals involved. The failure to provide these opportunities for cross-examination and access to relevant statements was seen as a violation of natural justice principles. The Commissioner's reliance solely on the inquiry officer's report without a comprehensive discussion on the appellants' submissions further highlighted the procedural irregularities and lack of fair consideration.

The Tribunal analyzed the submissions from both parties and the records of the case. It noted that the Commissioner's order was deficient in its reliance solely on the inquiry officer's report without adequately addressing the appellants' contentions. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order to be a non-speaking order, lacking detailed discussion and consideration of the appellants' arguments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a de novo examination by the Commissioner, ensuring that the appellants are given a fair hearing, access to relevant documents, and the opportunity for cross-examination as requested. The appeal succeeded on the grounds of procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice, leading to the decision for a remand for a fresh consideration of the case.