Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Will | Disinheriting Caring Spouse In Favour Of Non-Relatives Is An ‘Unnatural Disposition’ Raising Grave Suspicion: Supreme Court Registration Does Not Automatically Validate Will If Process Is Shrouded In Suspicion; Testator's Illiteracy Increases Burden On Propounder: Supreme Court Propounder Faces Heavy Burden Of Proof When Testator Is Illiterate; Registration Does Not Cure Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances: Supreme 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