9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er affidavit and justified the impugned proceedings also by contending that Regulation 23 does not contemplate issuance of any notice before passing the prohibition order. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, after reiterating the contentions raised in the counteraffidavit submitted further that in the absence of specific provision made under Regulation 23 of the said Regulation for providing opportunity of hearing to the Customs House Agent, the petitioner is not entitled to seek it as a matter of right. He also submitted that even though, the order of the Division Bench of this Court relied on by the petitioner, dealt with the said issue, there are other decisions from other High Courts against the claim of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sections, as the case may be, but the question that calls up for consideration is, whether the customs broker should be given an opportunity. 16.On the contention that the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment of the Rajasthan High Court has a binding effect, in Sunitha Venkatram v. Ms. Divya Rayapati, reported in 2015 (2) MLJ (Crl) 385, this Court held as follows:- 194. Under the Constitutional Scheme, I am empowered to decide, a question of law, independently of what the other High Courts, have decided and for that matter, the decisions of the other High Courts, may have a persuasive value and they do not a binding in the law, to be interpreted and applied to all the persons, to which, the Constitution of India, extends, but th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt, which has rightly set aside a prohibition order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 and granted liberty to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-VIII Commissionerate, Customs Broker Section, law, after providing a reasonable opportunity. 20. In the light of the above discussion and decisions cited supra, Writ Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P (MD) No.2269 of 2016 is closed. 9. 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 appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
