MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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