2023 (8) TMI 206 - HC - Customs

Court rejects petition to delay departmental proceedings pending criminal case, stresses independence of proceedings. Inquiry Officer to consider cross-examination request under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations.

M/s. Pearl Logistics, Represented by its Managing Partner Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs/Inquiry Officer, Tuticorin

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to delay departmental proceedings until the conclusion of criminal proceedings, emphasizing the independence ... Allegations of corruption against a Customs Appraiser - demanding and accepting undue advantage from Customs Broker's for issue of Let Export Order/Out of Charge Order in respect of export/import consignments - 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. It appears that if a request for cross-examination is made, the appropriate authority ought to examine that request and enable cross-examination and shall decline permission only after recording the reasons. 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 - Petition disposed off. Issues:- Request for keeping departmental proceedings in abeyance until the disposal of criminal proceedings.- Rejection of request for cross-examination under CBLR.Analysis:1. Request for keeping departmental proceedings in abeyance until the disposal of criminal proceedings: The petitioner sought to delay the departmental proceedings initiated under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (CBLR) until the criminal proceedings before the VIII Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai were concluded. The court held that criminal, departmental, and civil proceedings are independent, each serving distinct purposes with different standards of proof and objectives. It was emphasized that the departmental proceedings need not be stayed until the criminal case is resolved, rejecting the petitioner's contention.2. Rejection of request for cross-examination under CBLR: The petitioner's request for cross-examination under Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR was denied by the respondents, citing the existence of sufficient corroborative evidence. However, the court found the reasons for rejection to be vague and lacking specific details on the corroborative evidence presented. The court referred to Regulation 17(1) to 17(4) of the CBLR, emphasizing that if a request for cross-examination is made, the appropriate authority must consider it and allow cross-examination unless valid reasons are recorded for refusal. The court directed the Inquiry Officer to entertain the petitioner's request for cross-examination within two weeks and proceed with the inquiry accordingly.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a request for cross-examination within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with the provisions of the CBLR. The judgment highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to regulatory requirements in conducting departmental inquiries, emphasizing the right to cross-examination as a fundamental aspect of natural justice.