2014 (7) TMI 812 - HC - Customs

Violation of principle of natural justice - petitioner is prohibited from working as custom house agent (CHA) - Held that - The Apex Court in the case of Uma Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. 2009 (3) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT held that violation of principles of natural justice is opposed to the fair adjudication and conscience. The party should be made aware of the allegations made against him which may result into a penal order and any infraction shall entail the action liable to be struck down for violation of principles of natural justice. Since the order impugned is passed without affording an opportunity of hearing and the allegations as indicated in the impugned order does not appear to this Court to be so emergent and exceptional where the order of prohibition is inevitable. - order set aside - Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to decide the matter affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - decided in favor of CHA.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in an order prohibiting a custom house agent from working in a specific jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs prohibiting a petitioner from working as a custom house agent in a specific jurisdiction. The challenge is based on the violation of principles of natural justice. The court notes that the order was issued under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013, which empowers the Commissioner of Customs to prohibit a custom broker from working in certain sections if the obligations under Regulation 11 are not fulfilled. The regulation contains a non obstante clause, indicating that the power of the Commissioner is not subject to other provisions within the regulations, and does not explicitly mention the requirement of a hearing for the custom broker.

The judgment references the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in S.R. Sale & Co. vs. Union of India, where it was held that natural justice should be read into provisions where statutory regulations are silent on the matter. It emphasizes that in extreme cases requiring immediate prohibition, the Commissioner can pass such an order but must provide an opportunity for a hearing before making a final decision. Additionally, the Apex Court's decision in Uma Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. highlights that violation of natural justice is contrary to fair adjudication and conscience. The court quotes paragraph 19 of the judgment, stating that natural justice is fundamental for preventing miscarriage of justice.

Ultimately, the court sets aside the impugned order due to the violation of principles of natural justice. It directs the Commissioner of Customs to issue a notice to the petitioner specifying the violations under Regulation 11, allowing the petitioner to respond within a reasonable time and providing a personal hearing before deciding on any prohibition. The writ petition is disposed of without costs, emphasizing the importance of affording natural justice in such proceedings.