9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner of Customs, there was clearly a violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Customs should have recorded the reasons for disagreement and forwarded the same to the petitioner for his comments before passing the impugned order. Because of failure to do so, the impugned order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. - impugned order cannot be sustained - commissioner to decide the matter afresh - Decided in favour of assessee. - WP (C) 9660/2015 - - - Dated:- 2-11-2015 - Badar Durrez Ahmed And Sanjeev Sachdeva, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Priyadarshi Manish, Ms Anjali Manish and Mr Rahul Ranjan For the Respondent : Ms Sonia Sharma JUDGMENT Sanjeev Sachdeva, J WP(C) 9660/2015 CM No.23058 /2015(stay) 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking quashing of the order-in-original dated 01.09.2015, whereby the Commissioner of Customs has revoked the Customs House Agent (CHA for short) licence of the petitioner and ordered forfeiture of the security furnished by the petitioner and further imposed a penalty under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation of the petitioner by the inquiry report. On 20.08.2015, the petitioner received a letter from the Commissioner of Customs requiring the petitioner to appear for a personal hearing on 31.08.2015. On 31.08.2015, the petitioner appeared pursuant to the notice of personal hearing and reiterated its stand in its representation that in view of the exoneration by the inquiry report, the same be accepted and the suspension of the licence of the petitioner be revoked. 8. By the impugned order dated 01.09.2015, the Commissioner of Customs disregarding the inquiry report, has revoked the petitioner s CHA licence and has directed forfeiture of the security deposit and imposed penalty under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of the CBLR, 2013. 9. The petitioner has impugned the order contending that the Commissioner of Customs could not have disregarded the findings returned in the inquiry report and should have accepted the same and revoked the suspension of the licence of the petitioner. In the alternative, it is contended that if the Commissioner of Customs had any reason to disagree with the inquiry report, the Commissioner of Customs should have at least communicated the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question to any person tendering evidence for or against the Customs Broker, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position. (4) The Customs Broker shall be entitled to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and where the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs declines to examine any person on the grounds that his evidence is not relevant or material, he shall record his reasons in writing for so doing. (5) At the conclusion of the inquiry, the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, shall prepare a report of the inquiry and after recording his findings thereon submit the report within a period of ninety days from the date of issue of a notice under sub-regulation (1). (6) The Commissioner of Customs shall furnish to the Customs Broker a copy of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, and shall require the Customs Broker to submit, within the specified period not being less than thirty days, any representation that he may wish to make against the said report. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mstances. He is to independently assess the material and the report and to pass appropriate orders. Under Regulation 22 of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004 it is the Commissioner who is empowered to issue show cause notice to the CHA to suspend or revoke the CHA license and it is the Commissioner who is empowered to pass such orders as he deems fit after considering the inquiry report and the representation of the CHA, if any. Therefore, whether the inquiry report is in favour of the CHA or not, it is the Commissioner who has to pass the final order as he deems fit on the show cause notice issued by the Commissioner. The words such orders as he deems fit in Regulation 22(7) leave no manner of doubt that it is entirely at the discretion of the Commissioner, whether to agree or disagree with the inquiry report and pass such orders as he deems fit on the show cause notice. When Regulation 22(7) expressly empowers the Commissioner to pass such orders as he deems fit, it would not be possible to hold that if the inquiry report is in favour of the CHA, the Commissioner cannot pass an order against the CHA even if the Commissioner disagrees with the inquiry report. M/s. Delta Logis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons for disagreement were not communicated to the petitioner prior to the adverse decision being taken by the Commissioner of Customs, there was clearly a violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner of Customs should have recorded the reasons for disagreement and forwarded the same to the petitioner for his comments before passing the impugned order. Because of failure to do so, the impugned order is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. 17. The decision of the full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Delta Logistics v. Union of India (Supra) relied upon by the Respondent, does not help the case of the respondent as in the said case, the only question before the Full Bench was whether the Commissioner of Customs is bound by the findings recorded in the inquiry report, if the finding was in favour of the CHA or could he disagree with the findings recorded in the inquiry report and pass such orders, as he deems fit. The Full Bench answered the question holding that the Commissioner was empowered to disagree with the findings recorded in the inquiry report and was not bound to accept the same even if the same were in favour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
