2023 (7) TMI 74 - HC - Customs

Continuation of Suspension of Customs Broker Licence - Managing Director of the company (of CB) not given opportunity to submit his explanation - MD was in judicial custody - disregard to the principles of natural justice in terms of Regulation 16 (2) of CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT - It is nothing but gross violation of principles of natural justice. It is a settled principle of law that adequate opportunity of being heard i.e., audi alteram partem forms a cornerstone in the doctrine of principles of natural justice. The opportunity must be real, reasonable, and effective and not a mere empty formality as laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in MANEKA GANDHI VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT . Limitation of time cannot come in the way of giving a real and reasonable opportunity to the affected party for an effective hearing. This Court is of the view that the writ petition can be entertained despite the availability of alternative remedy the Managing Director of the petitioner company is permitted to submit their written explanation to the notices issued by the 1st respondent within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders according to law after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Petition is disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this legal judgment include the legality of orders issued by the respondent, compliance with regulations, violation of constitutional articles, suspension of Customs Broker License, principles of natural justice, availability of alternate remedy, and maintainability of the writ petition.

Petitioner's Case:
The petitioner, a Customs Broker, imported dried dates but Customs found undeclared Areca Nuts in the cargo. The Managing Director was arrested, and the license was suspended for non-fulfillment of regulations. Despite requests for postponement due to the Director's judicial custody, the suspension was continued without a hearing, leading to the writ petition challenging the suspension on grounds of natural justice.

Respondent's Version:
The respondent argued that the petitioner should have followed the appellate process instead of filing a writ petition directly. They contended that the cargo misdeclaration was intentional to evade customs duty. The respondent maintained that the suspension order was passed following due procedure and the petitioner had opportunities for a hearing which were not availed.

Court's Determination:
The court examined whether the writ petition was maintainable despite an alternate remedy being available. The court found that the suspension order lacked adherence to natural justice principles as the Managing Director was in judicial remand during crucial periods. Citing the importance of a real and reasonable opportunity for a fair hearing, the court held that the writ petition could be entertained despite the availability of an alternate remedy.

Legal Position:
The court referenced the rule of alternate remedy and exceptions where a writ petition can be entertained, such as violations of natural justice. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized that the High Court retains discretion in entertaining a writ petition, especially in cases involving fundamental rights, jurisdictional issues, or challenges to legislation.

Judgment:
The court allowed the writ petition, directing the Managing Director to submit written explanations within two weeks. The respondent was instructed to pass appropriate orders after a personal hearing, ensuring compliance with the law and principles of natural justice. No costs were imposed, and any related petitions were to be closed.