2016 (5) TMI 602 - AT - Customs

Revokation of CHA licence - Disagreement with the enquiry report - advice to the client to comply with the provisions of Customs Act and exercise of due diligence to ascertain the correctness of any information with reference to work relating to clearance of cargo - Import of deodorants, perfumes - Held that - the enquiry report analyzed various evidences with reference to these allegations and found that they are not proved. The enquiry report in full was communicated to the appellant by the Assistant Commissioner. A perusal of the said communication indicates that it enclosed the enquiry report and requested the appellant to submit their representation, if any, within 30 days in terms of Regulation 20(6) of CBLR, 2013. There is no indication or reference to any possible difference of opinion with reference to the enquiry report as entertained by the Original Authority. In other words, the enquiry report which exonerated the appellant totally, was communicated to the appellant for representation. Apparently, the appellant gave a reply reiterating their defence and supporting the findings of the Inquiry Officer. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant has been put to notice on the disagreement of the Original Authority with any part of the enquiry report. Therefore, it is clear that the present impugned order issued without indicating the disagreement with the enquiry report and getting the response of the appellant, is in clear violation of principles of natural justice by referring the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (General) vs. Dominic and Co. 2015 (8) TMI 142 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT . The impugned order is unsustainable and set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Violation of provisions of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013; Principles of natural justice; Time limit for passing the order under CBLR, 2013.

Violation of provisions of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013:
The appellant, a Custom House Agent, was involved in a case where imported products lacked proper MRP labels, resulting in underpayment of Customs Duty. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant under CBLR, 2013 for various violations. The appellant argued that the charges against them were not proved and that the impugned order was passed without following principles of natural justice. The Original Authority agreed with the enquiry report on some charges but disagreed on others related to advising the client to comply with Customs Act provisions. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was issued without indicating any disagreement with the enquiry report, violating principles of natural justice as per the Bombay High Court's decision.

Principles of natural justice:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as they were not given notice on points of difference and were not provided an opportunity to defend their case. The Tribunal held that the impugned order was issued without indicating any disagreement with the enquiry report, thus violating principles of natural justice as per established legal principles.

Time limit for passing the order under CBLR, 2013:
The appellant argued that the impugned order was passed beyond the prescribed 90-day period from the date of the enquiry report, rendering it without jurisdiction. The learned Authorized Representative opposed this, stating that the order was passed within the 90-day period as per the Original Authority's record. The Tribunal found that the impugned order was indeed passed beyond the 90-day limit, which was a violation of the time limit prescribed by CBLR, 2013. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on this ground.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the violations of principles of natural justice and the time limit for passing the order under CBLR, 2013. The appellant's arguments regarding the lack of proof for the charges, violation of natural justice principles, and the order being passed beyond the prescribed time limit were all considered. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order due to the failure to adhere to principles of natural justice and the time limit stipulated by the regulations.