Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: cblr in M/S.Universal Cargo vs The Commissioner Of Customs on 16 November, 2022Matching Fragments
3. It is submitted that on the basis of certain handwritten sheets given by N.Murugan, an amount of Rs.900/- was shown as given by the Petitioner firm's employee Mohamed Ali to the said custom official. Based on the statements recorded, a charge sheet came to be filed by Central Bureau of Investigation before VIII Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai on 31.08.2019 in Reference No.RC MA1-2019-A-0008 under various sections of Cr.P.C. and Prevention of Corruption Act. It is submitted that the above case is still pending. In the meantime, show cause notice No.10/2021, dated 05.02.2021 has been issued by 1st Respondent for taking action against Petitioner firm in terms of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as CBLR) on the premise that Regulation 10(i) of CBLR was violated by the Petitioner firm and it was thus proposed to revoke the Customs Broker Licence, order forfeiture of security deposit and impose penalty under various Regulations of CBLR. The Petitioner was called upon to show cause and directed to appear for personal hearing before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, who was appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The Petitioner submitted a detailed representation before the Inquiry Officer inter alia stating that proceedings initiated under CBLR are premature and before conducting and taking any action, Respondents must await for the outcome of the proceedings initiated before VIII Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. It was submitted that Petitioner firm should be granted permission to cross-examine the Investigating Officer, employee and also the customs officials under Regulation 17(4) of the CBLR.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. It is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents that departmental proceedings in terms of CBLR and criminal proceedings are independent and therefore, the request made by the Petitioner to keep the departmental proceedings initiated under CBLR until the disposal of the criminal proceedings in abeyance is clearly un-sustainable.
7. Heard both sides and perused the materials on record.
8. This Court finds that insofar as the request for keeping the CBLR proceedings in abeyance until the disposal of the criminal proceedings may not be justified. It is trite law that criminal proceeding, departmental proceeding and civil proceeding are independent, the purpose of each of the proceeding are distinct. 1The standard of proof, the objectives of the two proceedings are different. Thus the above contention of the Petitioner is liable to be rejected. The departmental proceedings initiated under CBLR need not be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the criminal proceedings.