9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase narrated by the petitioner is that, they were given Ext.P1 licence by the competent authority at Bangalore and is authorised to do business in different customs Stations, including at Cochin, as borne by the endorsement on Ext.P1 licence. Based on the said licence, the petitioner was transacting the business. It is stated that the petitioner was authorized by the company by name M/s Living Trends Imports and Exports [M/s LTIE] as borne by Ext. P2 issued in the year 2012 and on the strength of the said authorization, the petitioner was transacting the business by submitting shipping bills on behalf of the said company in the years 2012 and 2013; particulars of which are discernible from paragraph 2 of the writ petition. 3. In the course of further transactions on behalf of M/s LTIE, Ext. P3 shipping bill was submitted before the authorities of the Customs. Copy of the invoice is marked as Ext. P4 and Bill of lading is Ext. P5. It is stated that the position has been informed by the petitioner to the concerned company as well, as borne out by Ext. P6. The petitioner has also given the concerned docket number pertaining to the said company, as evident from Ext. P7. The case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... decisions relied on by the petitioners stand on a different footing. The learned standing counsel seeks to place reliance on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 1505 of 2014 on 28.10.2015(sic), simultaneously adding that scope of 'suspension of licence' as envisaged under Regulation 19 and scope of the 'prohibition' as envisaged under Regulation No. 23 are entirely different. It is only by virtue of the imminent requirement to intercept further proceedings, because of filing of complaint, that the respondent was constrained to consider the matter and issued Ext. P10. 6. In view of the nature of dispute involved, particularly with regard to the authority of the respondent to have issued Ext. P10 and the scope of hearing, this Court finds that the issue is more a legal question and as such, the factual position does not require to be evaluated. Hence, no counter affidavit involving the merit of the case is necessary, as this Court does not propose to venture into such exercise. 7. With regard to the legal position, Regulation 23 has been invoked by the respondent for having issued Ext. P10. Regulation 23 reads as follows: 23. Proh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fteen days from the date of hearing granted to the Customs Broker. Provided that in case the Commissioner of Customs passes an order for continuing the suspension, the further procedure thereafter shall be as provided in regulation 20. 20. Procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty :- (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issued a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence or impose penalty requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. (2) The Commissioner of Customs may on receipt of the written statement from the Customs Broker, or where no such statement has been received within the time-limit specified in the notice referred to in sub regulation (1), direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angalore. In such situation, 'revocation of licence' or suspension under Regulations 18 and 19 can only be taken by the said authority at Bangalore. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the dispute in this case is pertaining to the transaction pursued by the petitioner at the Customs station at Cochin and hence proceedings were initiated, invoking Regulation No. 23. The said regulation starts with a 'non-obstante clause' and as such, no specific opportunity of hearing is intended in such proceedings. But it is equally true, that the said order, which is stated as an interim measure cannot be permitted to exist for ever, which will adversely affects the rights and interest of the parties. The learned standing counsel asserts that Ext. P10 is only a provisional order and that steps have already been taken to issue notice and that the proceedings will be finalized at the earliest to cause the matter to be dealt with by the Licensing Authority at Bangalore, if further steps are necessary. The terminology used in Ext. P10 is very relevant, which is extracted below for convenience of reference : "In view of the above and in exercise of the powers conferred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms House Agent Licensing Regulations 2004. Regulation No. 21 referred to therein is similar to the Regulation 23 involved in the present case. After considering the position, the Bench observed in Paragraph 2 as follows : 2. Regulation 21 does not exclude the requirement of complying with the principles of natural justice. As a matter of first principle, even when a statute or statutory regulations is silent in regard to compliance with the principles of natural justice, natural justice is to be read into the provision. However, it is equally well settled that in a case where urgent action is required, particularly in public interest, it may not always be appropriate or efficacious to furnish a pre-decisional hearing. Where immediate action is required, the authority can be directed to give an opportunity to the person who is affected by the order an opportunity of a hearing after passing a pro-tem order for a limited period. In the case of a suspension. Reguation 20 (2) contemplates immediate action being taken, where it is required, after which an opportunity has to be given to the agent whose licence is suspended within fifteen days from the date of the suspension, In our ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rohibition' issued under Regulation 23 by the Customs of Cochin and also the order of 'suspension' issued by the concerned authority in Mumbai. The learned Single Judge only intercepted the suspension order issued from Mumbai, to the extent it was applicable to the Cochin Station. After considering the matter, the Division Bench observed that the order passed by the authorities of the Mumbai Customs was very much after giving an opportunity of hearing to the party concerned and that there was no case for the writ petitioner that any principle of natural justices were violated. Hence the challenge raised by appellants/department was upheld and the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge was intercepted, however making it clear that party to the writ petition was at liberty to avail statutory remedy, by virtue of the enabling provision under the Regulations. 14. With regard to the contention raised by the respondent referring to the alternative remedy available to the petitioner under Regulation No. 21 and that interference needs not be made by this Court, the question is, whether the power has been exercised arbitrarily by the respondent and whether the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
