2017 (11) TMI 258

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssary. The Respondent was granted a license to operate as Custom House Agent (for short "CHS") on 5th November, 2002 which was renewed from time to time. 2 A show cause notice was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune to the Respondent on 10th January, 2012. 3 The order of revocation of license was earlier passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai which was set aside by the Appellate Tribunal on 18th June, 2012 on the ground that the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai lacks jurisdiction as the license was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune. 4 On 10th January, 2012 a show cause notice was already issued, as stated above by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune alleging contravention of clauses (a), (d) and (e) ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bench at Mumbai. By the impugned order, the said Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal held that though the Commissioner of Customs was entitled to disagree with the findings recorded in the Enquiry Report, before doing that, the Respondent ought to have been put to notice as to why a different view should not be taken by the Commissioner. As no such notice was issued to the Respondent, the Appellate Tribunal proceeded to set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. 8 The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has relied upon the substantial questions of law framed in paragraph 4 of the Memorandum of Appeal. His first submission is that it cannot be said that the Commissioner of Customs ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the Respondent " 11 We have carefully considered the submissions. We have perused the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal as well as the order dated 28th March, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs. As narrated earlier, the first show cause notice was issued on 10th January, 2012 by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune calling upon the Respondent to show cause as to why his license should not be revoked on the basis of the allegation of violation of clauses (a), (d) and (e) of Regulation 13 by exercising power under Regulation 22. As pointed out earlier, the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai had revoked the license which order was set aside on the ground that the Commissioner of Customs at Pune had jurisdiction under Regulation 22.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ising power under the provisions of Regulation 22 of the said Regulations, a power is vested in the Commissioner of Customs to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer submitted in accordance with clause 5 of Regulation 22. However, elementary principles of natural justice require the Commissioner of Customs to put the licensee to the notice that he intends to disagree with the report of the Enquiry Officer or disagree with certain findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In the present case, in paragraph 7 of the show cause notice dated 19th October, 2012, the Respondent was called upon to show cause why the Enquiry report should not be relied upon while deciding earlier show cause notice dated 10th January, 2012. The second show c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the agony of the Respondent should not be continued by granting the said opportunity inasmuch as the subsequent events do not warrant revocation of license and first show cause notice of the year 2012. 15 Even if a fresh show cause notice is issued or supplementary show cause notice is issued, the issue of the delay always remains open which can be agitated by the Respondent while giving a reply to the show cause notice and at the time of personal hearing. There is no finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal that on merits, the action of revocation of the license was bad in law. The order of revocation has been set aside only on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice. As we are not disturbing that part of the order ....