TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (3) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... custom broker, handled the clearance of two firms, viz., M/s.Matrix GSM Network and M/s.Ganesh Agency, who imported various types of table top imitation plated gift articles and other articles from suppliers at Hong Kong. The petitioner would state that after obtaining authorization from them and also making necessary verification as per the KYC (Know Your Customer) norms prescribed under CBLR, the petitioner handled those consignments. The Department of Revenue Intelligence ( DRI for brevity) initiated investigation on the allegation of undervaluation. A statement was recorded from the partner of the petitioner Thiru.M.B.Govindaraju, on 24.09.2013, by the officials of the DRI, who stated about clearance of cargo handled for those two importers and stated that they had adhered to the terms and conditions stipulated in the regulation. The respondent issued show cause notice under Sections 28 and 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the importers, and the petitioner was one of the co-noticees. After about three months, the petitioner's custom broker licence was suspended by way of an order of interim suspension passed under Regulation 19(1) of the CBLR. The petitioner submitted their....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stoms Act, 1962. The petitioner has filed an appeal before the CESTAT challenging the order imposing penalty and the appeal is pending since June 2017. 7. Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned show cause notice dated 31.10.2014 is liable to be set aside for the simple reason, that is, it is verbatim repetition of the earlier notice dated 02.07.2014, and though the Court while passing the order in W.P.No.21941 of 2014, quashed the show cause notice on the ground that it is pre-meditated and concluded with liberty to the Department to issue fresh show cause notice keeping the object of issuing a show cause notice in mind, the authority once again issued the very same notice with certain cosmetic changes and therefore, it is liable to be quashed. 8. It was further argued that, as the Commissioner of Customs has already adjudicated the show cause notice and passed an order, no useful purpose would be served in responding to the impugned show cause notice and therefore, the continuance of further proceedings pursuant to the impugned show cause notice is meaningless or unsustainable. 9. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n records. 16. The first aspect to be considered is whether the impugned show cause notice dated 31.10.2014 is liable to be set aside on the ground that it still continues to have the inherent defects, which were pointed out by this Court while setting aside the earlier show cause notice dated 02.07.2014, issued on identical grounds. 17. As noticed earlier, the allegations in the impugned show cause notice and the show cause notice dated 02.07.2014, were identical. The petitioner challenged the said notice dated 02.07.2014 in W.P.No.21914 of 2014 contending that it is not a show cause notice, in that sense, in as much as it has concluded that the petitioner has committed lapses and has been issued in a pre-meditated manner with a closed mind. Certain paragraphs of the show cause notice were referred to, to substantiate the said contention. The Revenue resisted the prayer sought for by the petitioner. The Court by order dated 15.09.2014, took note of the categorical assertions in paragraph 14 of the show cause notice dated 02.07.2014, pointed out that, at the stage of show cause notice, the respondent should only have an open mind and if his mind is closed with predetermined c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2011 (266) E.L.T. 422 (SC), held that the use of the words it appears that is indicative of prima facie opinion and final determination. 22. In Abhishek Mudhra (cited supra), the Court considered the validity of a show cause notice and identical contention was raised stating that the show cause notice was pre-judged and pre-decided the issue and it was pointed out that even though in the impugned show cause notice, the expression admittedly has been issued in more than one place, those words alone cannot be read to interpret the impugned show cause notice as being pre-conceived or pre-meditated and the allegations in the show cause notice have to be read in its entirety. 23. In KVS Cargo Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) reported in 2016 (343) E.L.T. 24 (Del.), a show cause notice was impugned before the High Court of Delhi on the ground that it was pre-meditated. The matter arose under CBLR and the show cause notice was issued under Regulation 20 of the CBLR. The Court pointed out that paragraph 26 in the said notice is only putting the petitioner to notice in terms of Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR and the notice further shows that complete opportunity is being granted to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions mentioned in the CBLR. 28. Admittedly, as on the date, when the petitioner's application for renewal of the custom broker licence was rejected, there was no conclusive finding rendered against the petitioner holding that their conduct was not satisfactory with relevant to the obligation mentioned in the CBLR. I said so, because the petitioner's custom brokers licence was suspended by an order of interim suspension dated 25.06.2014 in terms of Regulation 19(1) of the CBLR. The allegations were identical to that of the allegations contained in the show cause notice dated 31.10.2014. The petitioner filed their written submissions and requested for revocation of the order of interim suspension. The respondent by Order-in-Original dated 06.08.2014, revoked the order of interim suspension. The authority has recorded certain reasons of which one of the reasons being, the offence was detected on 02.09.2013 and the licence was suspended on 25.06.2014, which is almost nine months after detection of the offence and the show cause notice has already been issued under Regulation 20(1) and inquiry proceedings have been initiated by appointing an Inquiry Officer to inquire the pr....