Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Court quashes communication due to procedural errors, refrains from opining on pending case</h1> <h3>M/s. A.M. Ahamed And Co Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Asst. Commissioner of Customs (CHA) Custom House</h3> M/s. A.M. Ahamed And Co Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Asst. Commissioner of Customs (CHA) Custom House - 2019 (365) E.L.T. 380 (Mad.) Issues:1. Challenge to an order under Regulation 21 of CHAL, 20142. Abetment charges against a Custom House Agent3. Reduction of penalty on appeal4. Stay application before CESTAT5. Recovery actions by the department6. Prohibition order under Regulation 21 of CHALR, 20047. Principles of natural justice in issuing orders8. Cross-examination rights in proceedings9. Multiplicity of proceedings and relief sought10. Interpretation of Regulation 21 and its purpose11. Suspension and revocation of CHA license under Regulation 2212. Quashing of the impugned communicationAnalysis:1. The petitioner, a Custom House Agent, challenged an order under Regulation 21 of CHAL, 2014, seeking relief from proceedings initiated against them. The petitioner claimed they were wrongly implicated as an abettor in a case of undervaluation by an importer they represented.2. The petitioner was accused of abetment in the undervaluation case by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). Despite the importer's involvement, the petitioner denied knowledge of the fraud and resisted vicarious liability, leading to penalties and appeals.3. The penalty imposed on the petitioner for abetment was reduced on appeal, and further proceedings were pending before CESTAT, including a stay application and waiver of pre-deposit, which the department was pressuring for payment.4. The department's insistence on penalty payment and refusal to wait for the outcome of the stay application led to recovery actions, impacting the petitioner's business operations.5. Despite a stay granted by the court, the department issued a prohibition order under Regulation 21 of CHALR, 2004, affecting the petitioner's ability to work in a specific customs commissionerate, prompting legal challenges and relief from the court.6. The petitioner highlighted the lack of adherence to principles of natural justice in issuing orders and sought cross-examination rights to defend their case effectively, especially concerning a show cause notice proposing license revocation.7. The respondents defended the communication as a notice of personal hearing, denying the denial of cross-examination rights, citing the applicability of cross-examination in subsequent proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004.8. The court acknowledged the multiplicity of proceedings and relief sought by the petitioner, emphasizing the need for proper consideration of merits by the appropriate authority, CESTAT, and criticized the continuous legal battles affecting both parties.9. The court interpreted Regulation 21's purpose as a temporary measure post-offence, emphasizing that substantive investigations should precede any prohibitive actions, and highlighted the significance of Regulation 22 in determining CHA license status.10. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned communication, focusing on procedural errors and refrained from opining on the pending case before CESTAT, allowing the writ petition and closing the associated miscellaneous petition.