Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madras High Court

M/S.Bharat Marine Co vs The Commissioner Of Customs ... on 15 September, 2014

Author: V.Ramasubramanian

Bench: V.Ramasubramanian

       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 

DATED: 15.09.2014

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN

W.P.No.21941 of 2014 
and
M.P.No.1 of 2014

M/s.Bharat Marine Co.
Represented by its Partner,
M.B.Govindaraju,
No.2, Jaffer Syrang Lane,
Chennai - 600 001.							.. Petitioner
vs

1. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import),
    Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai,
    Chennai - 600 001.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs 
      (Group III) and Enquiry Officer,
    Office of The Commissioner of Customs
    (Seaport-Import), Custom House, No.60,
    Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.					.. Respondents

Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in and connected with show cause notice in File No.R-354/CHA dated 02.07.2014, issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same.

		For Petitioner 		: Mr.B.Satish Sundar

		For Respondents		: Mr.A.P.Srinivas, CGSC
- - - - -

O R D E R

The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the show cause notice issued under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

2. Heard Mr.B.Satish Sundar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

3. The main ground on which the impugned notice is challenged is that the contents of the show cause notice disclose a pre-conceived and closed mind. A careful look at the show cause notice would show that upto paragraph 7, the show cause notice contains the narration of the facts relating to investigation conducted, the evidence recorded in the course of enquiry, etc.,

4. But, thereafter, in paragraph 9, the first respondent has recorded a series of findings. These findings, are very categorical in nature, without leaving any scope for the petitioner to explain.

5. Even in paragraph 14 of the impugned show cause notice, the first respondent has asserted that a clear prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner and that if the petitioner is allowed to continue to operate, it would be detrimental to the interest of revenue.

6. In the light of the categorical assertions and findings, I do not think that any useful purpose would be served in asking the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice. At the stage of show cause notice, the first respondent should only have an open mind. If his mind is closed with predetermined conclusions, the requirement of giving an opportunity to show cause becomes nugatory.

7. In SBQ Steels Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Guntur reported in 2014 (300) E.L.T. 185 (A.P.) a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court took exception even to use of the words it is clear in the show cause notice. Therefore, the impugned show cause notice is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the show cause notice is set aside. It is open to the first respondent to issue a fresh show cause notice, keeping the object of issuing show cause notice in mind. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

15.09.2014 Index : Yes / No kk V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

kk To

1. The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

2. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Group III) and Enquiry Officer, Office of The Commissioner of Customs (Seaport-Import), Custom House, No.60, Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001.

15.09.2014