Show cause notice repetition does not vitiate proceedings, but licence renewal cannot be refused before adjudication and hearing.

A show cause notice under the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations was not quashed merely because it repeated earlier factual allegations, since it was read as a proposal issued with an open mind and the limitation objection was left to the adjudicating authority. By contrast, rejection of licence renewal was unsustainable because no conclusive adverse finding had yet been recorded, the licence holder was not heard, and the authority effectively pre-judged an issue still pending under Regulation 20(1). The Court therefore declined to interfere with the pending notice proceedings, but set aside the renewal refusal and granted interim renewal relief subject to the outcome of adjudication.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the show cause notice issued under Regulation 20(1) of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 was liable to be quashed as a repetition of the earlier notice and as a pre-decided exercise; (ii) whether the order rejecting renewal of the custom broker licence was sustainable when no conclusive adverse finding had yet been rendered against the licence holder.

Issue (i): Whether the show cause notice issued under Regulation 20(1) of the Custom Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 was liable to be quashed as a repetition of the earlier notice and as a pre-decided exercise.

Analysis: The notice was issued after an earlier notice on the same factual foundation had been set aside, but the Court found that repetition of factual allegations alone did not make the later notice unsustainable. The governing test was whether the notice disclosed a proposal issued with an open mind and left the noticee with a real opportunity to answer the allegations. Reading the notice as a whole, the Court found expressions indicating that it was only a proposal to proceed under the regulation and not a final determination. The objection based on limitation was also held to be a matter for the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The challenge to the show cause notice failed and the writ petition was dismissed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order rejecting renewal of the custom broker licence was sustainable when no conclusive adverse finding had yet been rendered against the licence holder.

Analysis: The application for renewal had been made before expiry of the licence, and the rejection order had been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court found that, on the date of rejection, the allegations against the petitioner had not culminated in any conclusive adverse finding, and the earlier interim suspension had already been revoked. Refusing renewal on the basis of an unsatisfied allegation that was still sub judice before the show cause adjudication amounted to pre-deciding the very issue pending in the proceedings under Regulation 20(1). Such refusal was contrary to natural justice and could not stand.

Conclusion: The rejection of renewal was unsustainable and was quashed, with a direction to renew the licence for one year subject to the outcome of the pending adjudication.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to interfere with the pending show cause proceedings, but set aside the refusal of licence renewal and granted interim renewal relief pending adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: A show cause notice is not liable to be quashed merely because it restates the same facts as an earlier notice, provided it is only a proposal and not a closed or pre-judged determination; conversely, renewal of a licence cannot be refused by finally concluding an issue that is still pending adjudication without affording hearing and observing natural justice.

---