2022 (12) TMI 1252 - HC - Customs

Court dismisses writ petition challenging show cause notice & inquiry proceedings under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations.

M/s. Insoorya Express Cargo, Represented by its Managing Partner, Mala Murugan Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs/Inquiry Officer, Tuticorin

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash a show cause notice and inquiry proceedings under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. ... Revocation of Customs Broker License - rejection of cross-examination - existence of corroborative evidences or not - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- This Court finds that insofar as the request for keeping the CBLR proceedings in abeyance until the disposal of the criminal proceedings may not be justified. It is trite law that criminal proceeding, departmental proceeding and civil proceeding are independent, the purpose of each of the proceeding are distinct. The standard of proof, the objectives of the two proceedings are different. Thus the above contention of the Petitioner is liable to be rejected. The departmental proceedings initiated under CBLR need not be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the criminal proceedings - It appears that the request for cross examination has been rejected by giving reasons that are vague in terms of Regulation 17 of CBLR, which sets out the procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty. The impugned proceedings rejects the request on the premise that there is no absolute right of cross-examination as there is corroborative evidence, the same appears to be vague inasmuch as what is the corroborative evidence that is available has not been set out, except for a mere assertion, there is no details set out in support thereof - this Court is of the view that Petitioner shall make a request for cross-examination within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On receipt of such request, the Inquiry Officer shall examine and dispose of the request keeping in mind Regulation 17(3) and 17(4) of CBLR. The writ petition stands disposed of. Issues:Request for writ of Certiorari to quash show cause notice and inquiry proceedings based on alleged violation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018. Petitioner's request for cross-examination and abeyance of departmental proceedings pending criminal case.Analysis:The petitioner, an Authorized Customs Broker, sought a writ of Certiorari to quash a show cause notice and inquiry proceedings initiated by the 1st Respondent based on alleged violations of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR). The petitioner contended that the proceedings were premature as a criminal case was pending before the VIII Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. The petitioner requested permission to cross-examine individuals involved in the case, citing Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR.The Respondents rejected the petitioner's request for cross-examination, arguing that it was unnecessary due to sufficient corroborative evidence. They maintained that departmental and criminal proceedings were independent and should not be kept in abeyance. The court noted that criminal, departmental, and civil proceedings serve distinct purposes with different standards of proof. It found the petitioner's request to keep the proceedings in abeyance until the criminal case's conclusion unjustified.Regarding the rejection of the cross-examination request, the court analyzed Regulation 17 of the CBLR, emphasizing the petitioner's entitlement to cross-examine individuals involved in the proceedings. The court observed that the reasons for rejecting the request were vague and lacked specific details about the corroborative evidence. Consequently, the court directed the petitioner to submit a cross-examination request within two weeks, emphasizing compliance with Regulation 17(3) and 17(4) of the CBLR.In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, instructing the Inquiry Officer to consider the petitioner's cross-examination request in accordance with the CBLR. The court clarified that the directions were issued solely to provide the petitioner with an opportunity for cross-examination. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.