TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1292
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthorities to adjudicate the issue. 2. Later, pending that writ petition, in compliance with the order dated 18.12.2018, the Department took further steps. Eventually the Commissioner of Customs passed an order, dated 31st December 2018. Through that order, the Commissioner revoked the Company's registration, besides imposing penalty on the Company and two of its employees. Assailing that order, the petitioner Company, its Managing Director, and the Power of Attorney-that is, all the recipients of the show cause notice-filed WP(C) No. 302 of 2019. On the other hand, the two employees who suffered the penalty filed WP(C) No.720 of 2019, assailing the same order. 3. For the ease of narration and comprehension, I refer to the documents filed in WP(C) No.302 of 2019, besides referring to those in WP(C) No.720 of 2019 only if the clarity demands. 4. As counsel, Sri P.G. Jayasankar represents the petitioners in WP(C) Nos.41088 of 2018 and 302 of 2019; Ms. Amrin Fathima represents the petitioners in WP(C) No.720 of 2019. But before they could submit on the merits, Sri K.M.Natraj, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, has raised a preliminary objection. And that c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he counsel to physically verify the documents and objects, which are material and which have been heavily relied on in the impugned order. 10. Espousing the Company's cause, Sri Jayasankar submits that Exts.P3 and P4 circulars only prescribed the procedure for registration of a shipping agent, which the petitioner Company is; but it has not spelt out any mechanism for cancelling or revoking a registration. On that count, he contends Ext.P27 cannot be sustained. 11. About the alternative remedy, Sri Jayasankar submits that though Section 129A speaks of an appellate remedy, it is not efficacious. According to him, the Tribunal has not been in regular session. Besides that, as the petitioner's registration already stands revoked, before the Tribunal could adjudicate the issue, it would be many more months and, by then, the petitioner Company would suffer extreme hardship on every count, including the financial one. 12. Ms. Amrin Fathima, on the other hand, has submitted that the show cause notice has not spelt out which provisions the two employees have violated. Even on the penalty imposed, she contends that no rationale has been spelt out in the impugned order. In o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....learned Standing Counsel and Smt C.G.Preetha, the learned Central Government Counsel besides perusing the records. 18. Indeed, the Exts.P3 and P4 spell out the procedure for registration of a shipping agent. They do not in explicit terms refer to the mechanism of revoking the registration. But this seeming lacuna does not detain us any longer. For it is well established that an authority having power to do something has, by implication, unless expressly prohibited, the power to undo it. It is an inherent administrative power, subject to statutory stipulations or limitations. Here, though this Court avoids adverting to the merits, the Company and its employees, prima facie, face a grave allegation of fabricating the documents and falsifying the records. I reiterate it is only an allegation, though. 19. As to the statutory remedy, Section 129A, to the extent relevant, reads: 129A Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal (1) Any person aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order- (a) a decision or order passed by the [Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs] as an adjudicating authority....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion, redemption fine, personal fine and so on. In other words, a finding of statutory violation results in civil or evil consequences. So the principles of natural justice must be complied with. Kothari Filaments has gone on to observe that the Act, in the first place, does not prohibit the application of the principles of natural justice. On the facts of the case, it has observed a person charged with mis-declaration is entitled to know the ground based on which he would be penalised. He may have an answer to the charges or may not have, but there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that in law he is entitled to a proper hearing, which would include supply of the documents. 26. In ORYX Fisheries the Supreme Court has observed that a quasijudicial authority, while exercising its statutory power, must act fairly, even when initiating show-cause proceedings. Then it quotes with approval Kem Chand v. Union of India AIR 1958 SC 300, a Constitution Bench decision, to affirm that at the stage of show-cause the person proceeded against must be told about the charges against him so he can take his defense. It is obvious that while issuing the charge sheet, the authorities cannot articulate ....