Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court

Not Allowing Customs Broker An Opportunity To Cross-Examine Serious Prejudice: High Court Quashes Order Revoking Customs Broker’s License

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the High Court of Delhi has set aside the Order-in-Original by the Commissioner of Customs, which revoked the license of a Customs Broker, M/s Naman Gupta & Associates. The court’s decision, pronounced on January 30, 2024, underlines the criticality of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the procedural rights of parties in such cases.

Justice Ravinder Dudeja, in the judgment, strongly emphasized the necessity of allowing cross-examination in matters where witness statements form the crux of the proceedings. “Not allowing the Customs broker an opportunity to cross-examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of these proceedings has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner,” the Court observed (Para 18).

The petitioner challenged the revocation of their license and the imposition of penalties, arguing that the order was violative of fundamental principles of natural justice. Specifically, the petitioner was not granted the right to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the Inquiry Officer (Para 3).

In its detailed analysis, the Court scrutinized the procedures followed by the Inquiry Officer and the Commissioner of Customs, noting significant procedural lapses. The Court found that the Inquiry Officer assigned no reasons for denying the right of cross-examination, a clear departure from the mandates of regulation 17 (4) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 (Para 17-18).

The judgment also touched upon the role and responsibilities of a Customs Broker, highlighting the legal position as enunciated in previous judgments. The Court observed, “As a Customs Broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable, after the issuance of ‘Let Export Orders’ and export of the goods out of the country” (Para 20).

Ultimately, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order, and reinstating the petitioner’s Customs Broker License. This decision marks a significant precedent in the realm of customs law and underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring fairness and adherence to procedural norms in administrative actions.

 Date of Decision: 30th January 2024

NAMAN GUPTA VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AIRPORT AND GENERAL

 

Latest Legal News