Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2013 (9) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (9) TMI 783 - DELHI HIGH COURTProhibition to Transact Business in case of CHA - Surrender Of Original Licence - Petitioner had been prohibited from transacting business under Regulation 9(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 within the jurisdiction of Delhi Commissionerate with immediate effect and to surrender his original licence and cards issued to them - Petitioner contended that no hearing or show cause notice was granted/issued to the petitioner and there had been violation of principles of natural justice submitted that order of prohibition under Regulation 21 can be only in respect of one or more sections of the Customs House and not the entire Commissionerate - Held that:- The respondents themselves have issued Circular No. 9/2010-Customs dated 8th April, 2010 stating that where immediate suspension action is required under Regulation 20(2), there is no need to follow the procedure prescribed in Regulation 22, but it has been decided by the Board that post-decisional hearing should be given in all such cases so that errors apparent, if any, can be corrected and an opportunity of hearing is given to the aggrieved party - The aforesaid provision will be equally applicable to emergent and immediate action, which are taken under Regulation 21 - In these circumstances, we are leaving the second contention open as the petitioner can raise the said objection before the authorities concerned in the post-decisional hearing – Relying upon INTERNATIONAL CARGO SERVICES Versus UNION OF INDIA [2005 (5) TMI 81 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI ] - The petitioner was entitled to post-decisional hearing also and then the respondents should pass a speaking order. Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi [1977 (12) TMI 138 - SUPREME COURT ] - wherever the Parliament had intended a hearing it had said so in the Act and the rules and inferentially where it had not specified it was otiose - There was no such sequitur - The silence of a stature had no exclusionary effect except where it flows from necessary implication. Plain reading of the regulation 20 (2) would show that it was an emergent provision and its very purpose may be frustrated if the hearing was to be granted without exception and irrespective of the compelling facts and circumstances of the case, justifying passing of such an order - In the present case, no circumstances existed which would suggest invoking of this emergency provisions without taking recourse to the principle of natural justice - Furthermore, the order does not state, much less specifically give reasons which show proper application of mind by the concerned authorities for arriving at such a conclusion. Even administrative orders should be supported by proper reasons and application of mind - on both these accounts, the petitioner was entitled to succeed.
|