2018 (10) TMI 226 - HC - Customs

Prohibition on operation of the petitioner as CHA - case of petitioner is that the respondent is not entitled to pass the impugned prohibition order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner by putting them on notice - violation of principles of natural justice - Regulation of 23 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013. Held that - Perusal of the said Regulation 23, no doubt, though indicate that no such notice was contemplated, however, the fact remains that the very same issue was already considered by this Court and the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition on the ground that the order of prohibition was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. When the said order was challenged by the Commissioner of Customs, Thoothukudi, the Division Bench, by its order in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Thoothukudi v. Daniel and Samuel Logistics P.Ltd. 2016 (3) TMI 609 - MADRAS HIGH COURT confirmed the order of the Writ Court and dismiss the Writ Appeal - As the above said decision of the Division Bench of this Court is squarely covering the issue raised in this Writ Petition in favour of the petitioner and no contra decisions of this Court are placed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for passing fresh order on merits - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing a prohibition order without notice under Regulation 23 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioner challenged the order of the respondent dated 09.02.2018, which prohibited the operation of the petitioner as a Customs House Agent without affording an opportunity of hearing. The petitioner contended that the respondent cannot pass the prohibition order without providing a hearing, citing a Division Bench decision of the Court. The respondent justified the order by stating that Regulation 23 does not require issuing a notice before passing the prohibition order. The Court noted that while Regulation 23 does not explicitly mention a notice requirement, a previous decision by a single Judge was upheld by a Division Bench, emphasizing the importance of natural justice. The Division Bench confirmed that the order of prohibition was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, emphasizing the need to provide an opportunity of hearing before imposing such restrictions.

Judicial Precedents and Independent Decision-Making
The Court discussed the binding effect of judicial precedents from other High Courts, highlighting that each High Court has the independent power to decide questions of law. The Court cited a case to emphasize that while judicial precedents maintain uniformity, each High Court has the authority to interpret laws independently. The Division Bench reiterated that the decision of another High Court may have persuasive value but is not binding. In this case, the Division Bench upheld the decision of the Writ Court, setting aside the prohibition order and directing the Commissioner of Customs to provide a reasonable opportunity for a fresh decision.

Conclusion
Considering the previous decision of the Division Bench, which favored the petitioner and emphasized the importance of natural justice, the Court allowed the Writ Petition. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the respondent for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, with a specific directive to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within four weeks. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, as the issue raised in the petition was found to be covered by the previous decision of the Division Bench, leading to the allowance of the petition and closure of the connected miscellaneous petition.