Quashed

Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Customs (General),New Customs House,New Delhi & Anr.

Delhi HC4 Jan 2018W.P.(C)/10181/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed the writ petition challenging a Customs Housing Agent License revocation and penalty proceedings. It quashed the Inquiry Report because the respondents failed to furnish copies of statements and documents relied upon, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The Inquiry Report dated 14th November 2017 is quashed. A fresh inquiry to be held before the Inquiry Officer on 16th January, 2018. No order as to costs.

Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of… — Customs and Excise | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~1 & 2

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 10181/2017

¶4

Date of decision: 4^th January, 2018

¶5

HLPL GLOBAL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. .... Petitioner Through Mr. Priyadarshi Manish and Ms. Anjali Manish, Advocates. versus

¶6

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL),NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE,NEW DELHI & ANR. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate for the Customs.

¶7

W.P.(C) 11474/2017

¶8

HLPL GLOBAL LOGISTICS PVT.LTD ..... Petitioner Mr. Priyadarshi Manish and Ms. Anjali Manish, Advocates. versus THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS(GENERAL),NEW CUSTOMS HOUSE, NEW DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel and Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocate for the Customs.

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

¶11

SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)

¶12

W.P. (C) Nos.10181 & 11474 /2017 Page 1 of 7

¶13

Counsel for the respondents prays and is granted permission to file counter affidavit in W.P. (C) No.10181/2017. He states that this affidavit may be also read as affidavit and response to W.P. (C) No.11474/2017.

¶14

We take the statement made by the counsel for the respondents on record and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents is taken on record in W.P. (C) No.10181/2017 and will be also read as affidavit/response to show cause notice in W.P. (C) No.11474/2017.

¶15

Counsel for the parties states that as a short issue arises for consideration, arguments may be heard and the writ petitions may be disposed of.

¶16

HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, is inter alia, engaged in providing services for custom clearance of exports and imports. They have been issued Customs Housing Agent License No. R-49/2012 by the Commissioner of Customs (I&G), New Delhi under Regulation 9 (1) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, which is valid up to 31^st October, 2022.

¶17

Show cause notice dated 17^th August, 2017, was issued to the petitioner for contravention of Regulations 11(d) and 11 (e) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, seeking reply why the Customs Housing Agent License should not be revoked and the security submitted by the petitioner, partly or wholly, should not be forfeited in terms of Regulations 18 and 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The petitioner was also asked to respond as to why penalty should not be imposed on them in terms of Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of the

¶18

W.P. (C) Nos.10181 & 11474 /2017 Page 2 of 7

¶19

aforesaid Regulations.

¶20

6. The Inquiry Officer appointed vide letter dated 11^th September, 2017, informed the petitioner about his appointment and that the matter had been fixed on 5^th October, 2017 or 6^th October, 2017 or 3^rd November, 2017 at about 11.30 hours. The petitioner or his authorized representative was required to appear on the stipulated date and time along with written submissions, if any. In case of non-appearance, inquiry report would be prepared on the basis of material available on record without further reference.

¶21

7. In response to this notice, the petitioner wrote letter dated 15^th September, 2017, stating that the show cause notice was unclear about the documentary evidence on which reliance had been placed. Even names of witnesses had not been disclosed. In these circumstances, it was not possible for the petitioner to submit an extensive and detailed reply. It was stated that the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act cannot be considered as evidence. Reliance was placed upon certain judgments. In case the Inquiry Officer would choose to rely upon statements of third persons other than the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Act, clause (4) of Regulation 22 of the 2004 Regulations would apply. This was followed by similarly worded letter dated 21^st September, 2017.

¶22

8. The petitioner thereafter wrote letter dated 3^rd October, 2017, to the Inquiry Officer requesting that documentary and oral evidence which the Inquiry Officer wants to take into consideration should be furnished. Reliance was placed upon several judgments mentioned in the letter. Several other contentions and submissions were made.

¶23

W.P. (C) Nos.10181 & 11474 /2017 Page 3 of 7

¶24

9. The Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 6^th October, 2017, informed the petitioner that the show cause notice was self-explanatory and all facts had been stated therein. The inquiry proceedings were time-bound and crossexamination would not be permitted. In case any document or clarification was required with respect to the show cause notice, the same should be obtained from the office of the show cause notice issuing authority. This letter warned that final opportunity was being granted to the petitioner to file defence/reply and appear for personal hearing on 13^th November, 2017.

¶25

10. As per the petitioner, the letter dated 6^th October, 2017, was posted on 7^th November, 2017 and was received by them on 8^th November, 2017. Annexures have been filed in support. The aforesaid factual position is not disputed by the respondents. No explanation as to why there was a delay of more than one month in posting the letter after it was signed on 3^rd October, 2017 and bears the date “06.10.2017”. It may be pertinent to mention that this letter refers to the personal hearing before the Inquiry Officer on 5^th October, 2017 and therefore was possibly signed after 5^th October, 2017. This “Lapse” may require administrative action, which is for the authorities to examine.

¶26

11. The petitioner thereafter filed W.P. (C) No.10181/2017, which came up for hearing before this Court on 17^th November, 2017. Noticing the submissions made and also the contention that the Inquiry Officer had not furnished copy of documentary and oral evidence, the Court passed an interim order, restraining the Inquiry Officer from passing the final order. The said interim order was passed at 11.25 a.m. The order dated 17^th November, 2017, had directed that the counsel for the respondents would immediately inform the Inquiry Officer about the stay.

¶27

W.P. (C) Nos.10181 & 11474 /2017 Page 4 of 7

¶28

12. Thereafter, the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 22^nd November, 2017 and 7^th December, 2017. On the latter date, counsel for the respondents had handed over a copy of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act to the counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

13. However, it transpires that the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report dated 14^th November, 2017, before the restraint order was passed on 17^th November, 2017. This report was served on the petitioner on 23^rd November, 2017 vide communication posted on 22^nd November, 2017.

¶30

14. The respondents in the counter affidavit have pointed out that the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 14^th November, 2017, was diarized and had been communicated to the different authorities including the office of the General Commissionerate on 15^th November, 2017 and others on 16^th November, 2017 and 17^th November, 2017.

¶31

15. Counsel for the petitioner has made allegation that this report has been back dated. However, we need not go into this aspect in detail in the present writ petitions, for there are other grounds and reasons to allow the present writ petitions.

¶32

16. The order dated 11^th December, 2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 10181/2017 records the statement and assertion of the petitioner that they had not been furnished copy of the statements made by the proprietors of Jagson Trading Company and Chaman Lal & Sons referred to in paragraph 29 of the Inquiry Report. Similarly, statements made by Rajesh Chhabra (incorrectly recorded as “Rajesh Chadha”) had not been furnished.

¶33

17. The respondents in the counter affidavit have stated that as far as the relied upon documents are concerned, it had been learnt that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had issued a show cause notice under the Customs

¶34

W.P. (C) Nos.10181 & 11474 /2017 Page 5 of 7

¶35

Act and these documents were supplied. Reliance is placed upon the communication received from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 29^th December, 2017. However, a copy of the said letter has not been filed with the counter affidavit. The respondents have also not stated and given the date on which the show cause notice was issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Moreover, we find that this averment made in the counter affidavit is contrary to the assertion recorded in the letter/communication dated 6^th October, 2017, written by the Inquiry Officer, which had required the petitioner to obtain documents or clarification with regard to show cause notice directly from the show cause notice issuing authority. It may be relevant to state here that the Inquiry Report dated 14^th November, 2017, in paragraph 30 itself records that till then no show cause notice had been issued to the importers/custom brokers under the Customs Act.

¶36

18. The counter affidavit thus accepts and admits that the respondents had not furnished statements and other documents relied upon by them. These were partly furnished in the court on 7^th December, 2017 and recently in the form of CD-ROM. Hard copy has also been furnished to the petitioner. 19. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, which is undisputed, we would allow the present writ petitions and quash the Inquiry Report dated 14^th November, 2017. A fresh inquiry would be held by the Inquiry Officer in terms of the the Regulations without being influenced by the earlier Inquiry Report. The petitioner or his authorized representative would appear before the Inquiry Officer on 16^th January, 2018 at 11.30 a.m. for the said purpose. It will be open to the Inquiry Officer to fix further date(s) as and when, required or necessary. Inquiry report would be submitted by 15^th

¶37

W.P. (C) Nos.10181 & 11474 /2017 Page 6 of 7

¶38

March, 2018. It is clarified that we have not commented on merit or on the petitioner’s claim for right to cross-examination. This is an aspect which will be considered and examined by the Inquiry Officer/authorities.

¶39

20. The writ petitions are disposed of. In the facts of the present cases, there would be no order as to costs.

¶40

Dasti under signature of the Court Master.

¶41

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

¶42

CHANDER SHEKHAR, J. JANUARY 04, 2018 NA

¶43

W.P. (C) Nos.10181 & 11474 /2017 Page 7 of 7

Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Customs (General),New Customs House,New Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hlpl Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Customs (General),New Customs House,New Delhi & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Chander Khatri & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ct/Gd Mahadev Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.

Rohit Deshpande Vs Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Anr.

Hawa Valves a Company Registered and Incorporated & Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Rohan Kumar Mohanty Vs Directorate of Estate and Ors.

Basal Verma Vs Medical Council of India and Anr.

Naveen Rao Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Hindon River Mills Limited Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and Ors.

M/S Bagalkot Udyog Ltd. & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Max Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax

Aum Green Resources Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Additional Director General Directorate of Revenue Intelligence & Ors.

M/S P.S. Agencies Vs Commissioner Trade & Taxes & Anr.

Indo Burma Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs Commissioner, Vat, Delhi

Kellogg Company Vs Pops Foods Products (P) Ltd. & Anr.