Principal Commissioner Of Customs Airport And Acc Commissionerate Kolkata vs. Akshoy Kumar Ghosh And Sons

Facts

The Revenue, represented by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Airport and ACC Commissionerate, Kolkata, filed an intra-Court appeal against an order dated 01.12.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had directed the Chief Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs to appoint another officer of the same rank to hear the case of the respondents/writ petitioners concerning the suspension of their customs broker license. This direction was issued because the authority who issued the post-decisional hearing notice for license suspension was the same officer who had drawn the offense report, forming the basis for the action under CBLR, 2018. The Revenue contended that this dual role was permissible and did not violate principles of natural justice, as officers act in distinct capacities (investigating vs. adjudicating) based on their 'seat' of authority, not personal capacity. The Revenue argued that setting aside such orders would jeopardize departmental functioning.

Held

The High Court agreed with the ultimate conclusion of the learned Single Judge to direct the Chief Principal Chief Commissioner of Customs to appoint another officer to adjudicate the notice, thereby ensuring an effective post-decisional hearing and adherence to principles of natural justice. The Court acknowledged the potential for an impression of bias when the same officer investigates and adjudicates. However, the Court explicitly stated that the order passed in the writ petition should not be taken as laying down a legal principle. The Court noted that the grounds raised by the Revenue, concerning the departmental structure, the distinct roles of investigating and adjudicating officers, and the legality of dual charges, were not adjudicated in the writ proceeding. Therefore, the High Court left these legal issues open for future determination. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the direction for a different authority to conduct the inquiry, and the time for compliance was extended by 30 days. The Court clarified that the order would not prejudice the respondent's separate writ petition challenging the suspension beyond the prescribed time limit.

Key Issues

1. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in directing the appointment of another officer for the post-decisional hearing when the same officer had both investigated and initiated proceedings against the customs broker, potentially violating principles of natural justice by appearing to judge their own cause under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2018? Petitioner's Arguments (Revenue): - The learned Single Judge erred in not appreciating that in cases of offenses by Customs Brokers, investigation is supervised by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Admin), and subsequent adjudication is also completed by the same Commissioner. Acting on the Single Judge's order would render all such orders void and jeopardize departmental functioning. - An officer acts as an Investigation Officer during investigation and as an Adjudicating Officer during adjudication, with clear demarcations of responsibilities. Vesting responsibilities on the 'seat' and not the 'person' is the intention for speedy functioning. - The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC) issued the suspension order and the offense report while holding the post of Commissioner, Special Investigation & Intelligence Branch (Port). An authority holding charges of two Commissionerates cannot be precluded from passing orders by virtue of their official designation. - Officers of Customs are empowered by virtue of their post/authority under the Customs Act, 1962, and Regulations, not as individuals. Holding additional/dual charge in exigencies is a well-settled practice, making the suspension order legally sustainable. Respondents' Arguments (Akshoy Kumar Ghosh & Sons): - Not recorded in the judgment.