2017 (5) TMI 1235 - HC - Customs

Prohibition order - opportunity of being heard - Held that - since the suspension of licence would hurt the business of the licence holder it is necessary that the hearing pursuant to such suspension of licence should be concluded at an early date - while not interfering with the impugned order dated 31st March 2017 issued by Respondent No. 2 suspending the Petitioner s licence the Court directs that the Petitioner will appear before the Commissioner Meerut on 5th June 2017 at 11 00 am and by that date also tender a reply to the order of suspension - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing counter affidavit.
2. Challenge to two orders: one prohibiting the petitioner from continuing work as a Custom Broker, and the other suspending the petitioner's CB license.
3. Lack of show cause notice prior to the prohibition order.
4. Allegation of no independent application of mind before suspension of license.
5. Interpretation of Regulation 19(2) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.
6. Opportunity given to the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner for a post-decisional hearing.
7. Direction for the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner and tender a reply to the suspension order.

Analysis:

1. The judgment begins with the condonation of delay in filing a counter affidavit, which is disposed of due to reasons stated in the application.

2. The petition challenges two orders: one passed by the Commissioner of Customs prohibiting the petitioner from working as a Custom Broker, and the other suspending the petitioner's CB license. The court quashes the prohibition order as no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to its passing.

3. Regarding the suspension order, it is argued that the facts in the suspension order were a reproduction of those in the prohibition order, indicating a lack of independent application of mind. However, the court notes that the suspension order is appealable, and the petitioner has been given an opportunity to appear before the Commissioner for a post-decisional hearing.

4. The court acknowledges the need for a quick resolution due to the impact of license suspension on the petitioner's business. It directs the petitioner to appear before the Commissioner, tender a reply to the suspension order, and orders the Commissioner to pass a final order within two weeks, considering all submissions.

5. The judgment emphasizes that the rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be argued before the Commissioner, ensuring an independent decision-making process. It concludes by disposing of the petition and application in the mentioned terms.