Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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