Presumption Of Correctness Of Judicial Records Not Absolute And Can Be Rebutted By Direct Evidence: Kerala High Court on Married Daughter Cannot Challenge Partition After 21-Year Slumber If She Had Knowledge: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala High Court Orders Immediate Suspension Of Lakshadweep CJM For Allegedly Forging Witness Deposition To Convict Accused Supreme Court Bars Post-Divorce Maintenance Claims When Wife Voluntarily Waived Maintenance In Settlement Agreement Advocate Is An Officer Of Court, Not Mere Agent Of Client: Allahabad High Court Distinguishes Between Active Concealment & Statement In Ignorance, Slaps Cost On Litigants For Misleading Bench Cannot Summon Accused Mechanically On Protest Petition Without Assigning Justifiable Reasons: Andhra Pradesh High Court Increment Not A Bounty: Allahabad High Court Rules Public Holiday Cannot Delay Pay Hike For Teachers Joining Next Working Day Paying Taxes Or Utility Connections Confer No Legal Ownership Over Govt Land': Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Demolition Of Encroachment 'Cannot Compel Public Authority To Collect Data From Private Bodies': Bombay High Court Quashes CIC Orders Directing SEBI To Procure BSE Records Under RTI Act Section 10 CPC Cannot Stay Previously Instituted Title Suit Pending Subsequent Probate Case; Inherent Powers Under Section 151 Inapplicable When Probate Dismissed: Calcutta High Court Mere Phone Calls Without Transcripts No Ground For Murder Conspiracy: Delhi High Court Clear Violation Of Section 42 NDPS Act': Gujarat High Court Holds Failure To Record Secret Info In Writing Fatal When Police Officer Had Time To Act JK High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Cop Accused Of Threatening Advocate Over Phone Call Without Prior Sanction Under Section 197 CrPC Custody Unwarranted For Mere Formalities Once Weapon Is Recovered: Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail In BNS Axe Attack Case Circumstances Of Crime Can Be Assessed During Trial: High Court Upholds Trial Of Minor As Adult Under JJ Act In Murder Case Statutory Deposit Under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC Is A Sine Qua Non; Litigant Cannot Stall Auction Sale By Merely Blaming Counsel: Madras High Court Ban Junk Food Within 50 Metres Of Schools: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Moto Cognizance To Enforce FSSAI Norms, Protect Children From Obesity

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