ACCRETE SHIPPING SERVICES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is a Customs Broker licensed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018, is before this Court impugning Ext.P9 order of the respondent that ordered the revocation of the license issued to him under the aforesaid Regulation, and imposed a penalty of Rs.50,000/- on him under the same Regulation. In the Writ Petition, it is the case of the petitioner that, while in terms of the regulation the respondent had appointed an Enquiry Officer to look into the aspects contained in the notice issued to the petitioner after considering the reply of the petitioner to the said notice, and the Enquiry Officer had submitted a report before the respondent in favour of the petitioner, the respondent, thereafter, proceeded to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and pass an order adverse to the interests of the petitioner. The contention in the Writ Petition is essentially that if the respondent wanted to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, then the notice issued to the petitioner in that regard should have clearly indicated that the respondent was proposing to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, and proceed against the petitioner in accordance with the proposal in the show cause notice initially issued to him.

(2.) Through a counter affidavit and an additional counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, while the sequence of events leading to the passing of the impugned order is detailed, it is not disputed that, prior to the passing of the impugned order, the notice issued to the petitioner did not contain a proposal of the respondent disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. In other words, there is nothing in the counter affidavit that would suggest that the respondent had issued a notice to the petitioner proposing not to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer and to proceed against the petitioner based on the allegations raised in the show cause notice issued to him.

(3.) I have heard Sri.Balagopal.M, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned Standing counsel for the respondent. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar, and taking note of the judgments of this Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that Ext.P9 order passed by the respondent cannot be legally sustained. When an Enquiry Report is furnished before the respondent in proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 and the Enquiry Report is in favour of the petitioner, then the notice subsequently issued by the respondent ought to have indicated very clearly as to whether the respondent was proposing to accept the Enquiry Report or not accept the same. Only such a notice would have indicated to the petitioner the future course of action proposed against him by the respondent. Inasmuch as there was no notice issued to the petitioner, whereby the respondent indicated that he was not ready to accept the Enquiry Officers Report, the petitioner cannot be faulted for having assumed that the Enquiry Report that was in his favour would be accepted by the respondent. The respondent not having issued a notice on the lines indicated above, I am of the view that Ext.P9 order passed by the respondent has taken the petitioner by surprise and to that extent it is in gross violation of the rules of natural justice. I therefore, quash Ext.P9 order and direct the respondent to pass a fresh order after issuing a notice to the petitioner giving the reasons as to why the respondent proposes not to accept the findings of the Enquiry Officer in Ext.P5 Report. The petitioner shall, thereafter, be afforded an opportunity to reply to the said notice and also be extended an opportunity for personal hearing, before the respondent proceeds to pass a fresh order as directed in this judgment. The respondent shall pass the fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.