The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the suspension order passed by the Customs Commissioner suspending the customs broker licence without giving the opportunity for a hearing.
The Managing Director of the company could not have any opportunity to submit his explanation to the notice issued by the authorities, and while he was in judicial custody, the suspension order was passed.
Petitioner company is a Customs Broker with Licence No.02/2011, which assists importers in Customs clearance of imports and exports, engages in trading of various goods and, imports goods from other countries for sale in India. All activities of the Company are looked after by the Managing Director and no other Directors are conversant with its day-to-day affairs.
The Petitioner company contacted NOOR AL SHAWAL GENERAL TRADING LLC, an exporter of dried dates, and on terms of the trade, commenced the process for import of 56,000 Kg. of dried dates by issuing a purchase order, vide Invoice No.RM-22-23-001, dated 02.01.2023.
Next, the exporter issued a Commercial Invoice-cum-Packing List No.TD2301011, dated 23.01.2023. In complying with the statutory requirements, the exporter exported the goods on 05.02.2023 through Globe Opus Shipping Line UK Ltd.
On examination by the Customs on 17.03.2023, it was found that the cargo contained both Areca Nuts and Dried Dates. Believing that the petitioner mis-declared both the value and goods, the Customs Authorities, Visakhapatnam seized the goods. The Managing Director of the petitioner company was summoned by the Customs Authority and arrested in terms of Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962 and was subsequently remanded to judicial custody.
The Commissioner of Customs issued a suspension order suspending the Customs Broker Licence of the petitioner under Regulation 16 (1) of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulations, 2018 (“CBLR”) for non-fulfilment of Regulations 10 (d) and 10 (e) of the CBLR, 2018.
Vide the suspension order, a personal hearing was fixed on 04.04.2023 at 11:30 under Regulation 16 (2) of CBLR, 2018 and any written representation should reach before the date of hearing. Petitioner made several representations vide letters dated 05.04.2023, 06.04.2023, and 10.04.2023 requesting the Commissioner of Customs to postpone the date of personal hearing as the Managing Director of the petitioner was in judicial remand and the other Directors or CEO of the company are only nominal and are not conversant with the procedure and nature of work.
Though time was requested till 20.04.2023 on the ground that the Managing Director would be released on bail, without hearing the petitioner company, the 1st respondent issued the impugned Order for continuing the suspension of Customs Broker Licence till the conclusion of the investigation.
The Managing Director of the company could not have any opportunity to submit his explanation to the notice issued by the authorities and while he was in judicial custody, the impugned order was passed. It was argued that it is nothing but gross violation of principles of natural justice.
“The writ petition is disposed of and the Managing Director of the petitioner company is permitted to submit their written explanation to the notices issued by the 1st respondent within two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such explanation, the 1st respondent is directed to pass appropriate orders according to law after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner”, the bench of Justice U. Durga Prasad Rao and Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
