2017 (11) TMI 1187 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - scope if inquiry report - Held that - the fact remains that the inquiry which is conducted as per the requirement of the Regulation has recommended only imposition of the penalty. Such inquiry report was made available, without any further comments to the appellant, for their representation. Accordingly, the appellant filed their representation. It is clear that the revocation order, as done in the impugned proceedings, is beyond the recommendation given by the inquiry officer - there is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. It is necessary to put the appellant to notice regarding proposed rejection of the inquiry report and proposed enhancement of penal action, including revocation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against revocation of license and forfeiture of security deposit based on violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The appellant, a licensed Custom House agent, appealed against the revocation of their license and forfeiture of security deposit by the Commissioner (General), Custom House Airport, New Delhi. The appellant contested the findings, arguing that they did not violate any provisions of CHALR, 2004/CBRL, 2013. They specifically challenged the impugned order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The inquiry officer appointed to investigate the charges found that the appellant had violated Regulation 11(d) of CBLR, 2013 to some extent, recommending only imposition of a penalty under Regulation 22. However, the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit exceeded the inquiry officer's recommendation. The appellant claimed they were not given notice regarding the rejection of the inquiry report and the proposed enhancement of penal action, including revocation, which they argued was essential for a fair process.

The Appellate Tribunal noted that the revocation order went beyond the inquiry officer's recommendation, which only suggested imposing a penalty. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of informing the appellant about any proposed rejection of the inquiry report and enhancement of penal action, including revocation, as failure to do so would violate the principles of natural justice. Citing a similar case, the Tribunal highlighted that notice to the appellant regarding any disagreement with the inquiry report's findings is necessary to ensure a fair process. In this case, the Tribunal found a clear violation of natural justice principles and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision was made to uphold the principles of natural justice and ensure a fair hearing for the appellant.