Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2020 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 554 - KERALA HIGH COURTRevocation of Customs Broker Licence - imposition of penalty - 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 - HELD 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 are directed 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 - respondent shall pass the fresh order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
|