2016 (11) TMI 619 - HC - Customs

Rejection of application of the partnership for granting customs broker licence - principles of natural justice - one of the partners of the firm has been visited with personal penalty - Held that - the impugned order was passed without granting any hearing to the petitioners. The order of rejection, which results into civil consequences, was thus passed in breach of principles of natural justice. From the order, it further emerges that the sole ground on which the Principal Commissioner decided to reject the application for licence was that one of the partners of the firm has been visited with personal penalty. The impugned order dated 3-6-2015 is set aside only on the ground of non-hearing. - Matter remanded back for fresh decision after personal hearing - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to rejection of customs broker license application based on penalty imposed on one partner without granting a hearing.

Analysis:

1. Grounds for rejection of license application: The petitioners, a partnership firm and one of its partners, challenged the rejection of their customs broker license application by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Kandla. The rejection was based solely on the fact that one of the partners had been penalized under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The rejection cited the failure to fulfill conditions under Regulation 5(e) of the CBLR, 2013.

2. Violation of natural justice: The petitioners contended that the rejection order was passed without granting them a hearing. They argued that had they been given an opportunity to be heard, they could have presented correct facts to the authorities. The High Court observed that the order, which had civil consequences, was passed in breach of principles of natural justice as it was issued without providing a hearing to the petitioners.

3. Setting aside the order: Considering the lack of hearing and the consequential breach of natural justice, the High Court set aside the impugned order dated 3-6-2015. The court directed the petitioners to submit a detailed representation to the competent authority by a specified date, latest by 30-4-2016. The competent authority was instructed to issue a fresh order in accordance with the law after considering any materials presented by the petitioners. The court clarified that the petitioners were not automatically entitled to a personal hearing, leaving the decision on granting a hearing to the discretion of the competent authority.

4. Disposition of the petition: The High Court disposed of the petition accordingly, allowing the petitioners the opportunity to represent their case with the correct facts and directing the competent authority to reevaluate the application for the customs broker license in light of the representations made by the petitioners.