9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 1032 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker licence - forfeiture of security amount under Regulation 14 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 (CBLR) - imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 18 of CBLR - even after absolution of liabilities in the inquiry report is assailed - HELD THAT - On perusal of the entire proceeding with reference to the procedure mentioned in the CBLR for revocation of licence and imposition of penalty, it is noted that the entire proceeding conducted by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) was irregular and unsupported by any legal provision for the reason that after serving show-cause notice on dated 25.11.2021 to the Appellant, causing and completing inquiry by 21.03.2022 concerning legality of suspension of licence made on 07.09.2021 which was admittedly done beyond 90 days without any justifiable excuse, he had issued a disagreement memo to the inquiry in which the charges were not proved despite the fact that Regulation 17(6) (7) had not contemplated such a mechanism. In the instant case the report of inquiry was not furnished to the Appellant seeking his response in compliance to para 6 of Regulation 17 apparently for the reason that the report was not against the Appellant. However, in complete disregard of the report and in the absence of a representation from the Appellant Customs Broker, the Commissioner had prepared a disagreement memo instead of passing an order revoking the suspension of the licence or, in the worst scenario, confirming the revocation of licence itself, in compliance to para 7 though before such revocation order Appellant was noticed to submit his response. However, a close reading of para 7 of the Regulation 17 would clearly indicate that the Commissioner was only empowered to consider the inquiry report and representation of the Customs Broker, if made against such report - To bring more clarity to this provision, it may be said that only when the report is against the Customs Broker, his representation is to be considered against the adverse report before passing any order and it has never empowered the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) or the Commissioner of Customs to proceed against the Customs Broker even when the inquiry report, prepared after taking evidence and recording findings against the offence report containing summary of investigation and prima facie framing of charge into the acts of omission and commission by the Customs Broker, if any. The Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) had exceeded his jurisdiction in proceeding against the Customs Broker, despite charges being not established in the inquiry report - Appeal allowed.
Issues:
Legality of revocation of Customs Broker licence and forfeiture of security amount under CBLR, imposition of penalty under CBLR, non-completion of inquiry within stipulated time frame, denial of opportunity of cross-examination, irregularity in the proceeding conducted by Principal Commissioner of Customs. Analysis: The case involved the challenge to the revocation of a Customs Broker's license and imposition of penalties under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 (CBLR). The Customs Broker was charged with violations but the charges were not proved in the inquiry report. The Principal Commissioner of Customs proceeded against the Broker despite the charges not being established in the report. The Tribunal noted that the proceeding conducted by the Commissioner was irregular and unsupported by legal provisions. The Commissioner issued a disagreement memo instead of passing an order revoking the suspension of the license, which was required under the CBLR. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of providing the Broker with an opportunity to respond before revoking the license. The Commissioner exceeded jurisdiction by proceeding against the Broker without charges being established in the inquiry report. The Tribunal referred to various judicial decisions to support its analysis, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural requirements and principles of natural justice. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner's actions were not in line with the provisions of the CBLR, specifically Regulation 16, which outlines the procedure for revocation of a license. The Tribunal concluded that the Principal Commissioner of Customs had exceeded jurisdiction and set aside the order revoking the Broker's license. The Tribunal restored the Broker's license, set aside the penalty, and nullified the order of forfeiture of the security deposit. In the operative portion of the order, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs and restoring the Customs Broker's license. The penalty was also set aside, and the order of forfeiture of the security deposit was nullified, providing consequential relief to the Broker. The Tribunal's decision was based on the irregularities in the proceeding, the failure to adhere to procedural requirements, and the lack of charges being established against the Broker in the inquiry report. The Tribunal's analysis focused on upholding the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative actions related to Customs Broker licenses.
|
