Case Law Details
Mars Shipping Services Vs Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
As regards the show cause notice, dated 8.9.2014, it is to be noted that the respondent has followed the procedure contemplated under the Regulations after having passed an order for continuing the suspension, by proceedings dated 28.8.2014. As per Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2013, the respondent is empowered to revoke the licence of the customs broker and order for forfeiture of part or whole security or impose penalty not exceeding fifty thousand rupees. In order to probe into the charges levelled against the petitioner, a show cause notice dated 8.9.2014 has been issued to the petitioner, by appointing an Enquiry Officer, calling upon the petitioner to file written statement of defence and objections.
It is relevant to extract para 21 of the impugned show cause notice, dated 8.9.2014 on which, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed strong reliance, which reads as under:
“21. After going through the records of the case and the submissions made by the manager of the Customs Broker against the suspension order dated 31.07.2014 during the personal hearing, it was concluded that the Customs Broker failed to fulfill the obligations cast upon them under Regulation 10, 11(a), 11(e), 11(n) and 11(d) of CBLR, 2013 and committed professional mis-conduct while acting as a Customs Broker, as alleged in the suspension order dated 31.7.2014 was continued vide O-in-O No.29163/2014 dated 28.8.2014 issued under Regulation 19(2) of CBLR, 2013.”
A perusal of the above emphasized portion, it is clear that the respondent has categorically come to the conclusion that the Customs Broker failed to fulfill the obligation cast upon them under the regulations mentioned to therein and committed professional misconduct, while acting as custom Therefore, relying upon the above emphasized portion in the show cause notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even at the stage of the show cause notice itself, the respondent has completely made up his mind and reached definite conclusion about the failure of the petitioner to fulfill the obligations cast upon them and also about the professional misconduct while acting as a Customs Broker. I find a considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In fact, this Court is well aware of the settled legal position that the show cause notice cannot be read hyper-technically, but it is to be read reasonably and that the Writ Court should be slow and circumspect in interfering at the show cause stage, unless it is successfully proved that the Authority issuing the show cause notice is not competent or the show cause notice is outcome of malice and de hors the provisions of law, but in the present case, the emphasized portion contained (cited supra) in the impugned show cause notice, would clearly indicate that the respondent has predetermined the issue. This Court would have appreciated the respondent if she could have added atleast the words, ‘prima facie’ before the sentence starting “it was concluded that the Customs Broker failed to …”. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from a reading of the impugned show cause notice, an overall impression one gets is that the respondent has predetermined the issue.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
