9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 11X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice as discussed below. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is as follows: The petitioner is a holder of Customs Broker License and engaged in the customs clearance work. The petitioner filed Bill of Entry No.2574218 dated 24.07.2018 for clearance of consignment. On payment of duty, assessed goods were cleared on 24.08.2017. A show cause notice was issued on 24.02.2018 under section 124 of the Customs Act to the importer proposing penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The said notice was adjudicated and an Order-in-Original dated 16.04.2018 was passed imposing penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the petitioner Company. The respondent had issued a notice dated 02.05.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... objection on such disagreement. In support of such contention, learned counsel relied on the Division Bench decision of the Delhi High Court reported in 2016 (334)LT 262 (Him Logistics Pvt.Ltd. vs. The Commissioner of Customs(General). 4. When this matter was taken up for admission on 04.12.2018, Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Standing counsel took notice for the respondent and sought time to get instruction. Thereafter, the matter is listed today for further hearing. 5. Learned Standing counsel submitted that the respondent, on receipt of the enquiry report from the Inquiry Officer has forwarded the same to the petitioner through his communication dated 23.08.2018 calling upon them to represent against the findings of the Inquiry Off ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on such charges, the enquiry report filed by the Inquiry Officer is a crucial document and if the disciplinary/punishing authority intends to disagree with the whole or any of the findings rendered by the Inquiry Officer, in respect of the whole or any of the charges, he has to necessarily put the person, against whom such charges are made, on notice, by specifically expressing his disagreement and call upon such person to give objection on such disagreement. Without disclosing the disagreement and without calling upon the person against whom the charges are levelled to show cause on such disagreement, if an order is passed by imposing punishment by disagreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, certainly, it should be construed as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion. 7. Considering the above stated facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to place their objections as against the disagreement of the respondent in respect of the charge levelled in relation to Regulation 11(m). 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The punishments imposed in the impugned proceedings are set aside. Consequently, the petitioner as well as the respondent are directed to treat the impugned communication as reasons for disagreement entered by the Commissioner. Thus, the petitioner shall furnish their objections to the reasons for the disagreement within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such objection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
