9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt is left with the considered view that personal hearing alone does not satisfy NJP in the instant case. In other words, this Court sustains the submission of learned counsel for writ petitioner in this regard. The writ petitioner has admitted in its capacity as CBL holder that it has failed to verify the correctness of the value and quality of the export consignment, which was exported, t he question as to whether it is the responsibility of the customs broker to so verify is left open owing to the nature of the order, which this Court proposes to pass - it is open to the writ petitioner to contend that duty is not cast on the customs broker licensee to verify the value and the quality of the consignment. It is open to the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... counsel on both sides, main writ petition itself is taken up, heard out and is being disposed of. 3. Writ petitioner before this Court is a Customs Broker with a valid 'Customs Broker Licence' (hereinafter 'CBL' for brevity) issued by an appropriate Authority. 4. Customs Broker Licence Number is IND/001/2007 and it is not in dispute that the same is valid up to 2027. Authority, who has issued Customs Broker Licence is, Indore Customs Commissionerate. To be noted, vide the CBL, writ petitioner has been allowed to transact business in Chennai Customs by Chennai Customs Commissionerate. 5. In the course of the business activity, service of the writ petitioner was engaged by on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is a composite order, wherein orders have been passed both against the writ petitioner in writ petitioner's capacity as CBL holder and the aforementioned exporter. As far as the writ petitioner is concerned, a penalty of ₹ 1 lakh has been imposed under Section 117 of the said Act and a recommendation has been made for initiation of enquiry against the writ petitioner under 'Customs Broker Licensee Regulations, 2018' ('CBRL' for brevity). There are other aspects of the impugned order against the exporter, but this Court is informed by Revenue counsel that the exporter has not chosen to assail the impugned order and therefore, it is not necessary to going into those aspect of the matter. 11. As far a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed) is imperative as the noticee should be informed about the grounds on which the penalty is proposed to be imposed so that there can be effective representation by noticee. Absent such notice, personal hearing is of no consequence qua NJP is learned writ petitioner counsel's further say. 15. It is the specific case and stated position of writ petitioner that if the grounds i.e., grounds on which penalty was proposed to be levied had been communicated in accordance with Section 124(a) of the said Act, the writ petitioner would have been able to meet the same. In this view of this matter considering facts of this case, this Court is left with the considered view that personal hearing alone does not satisfy NJP in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tween the writ petitioner and the exporter. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court is convinced that the writ petitioner ought to have been given a notice under Section 124(a) of the said Act clearly setting out the grounds on which the penalty was proposed to be imposed, so that the writ petitioner would have got an opportunity to dispel the same. 18. As far as the exporter is concerned, as already alluded to supra impugned order is a composite order and this Court is informed by Revenue counsel that exporter has not chosen to assail the impugned order. This assumes significance as a perusal of the impugned order reveals that exporter has clearly waived issue of notice under Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
