AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 7-12-2010 whereby the Respondent No. 3 after invoking the provisions of Regulations 13 & 20(a)(b) & (c) of the Customs House Agent Regulations, 2004 as amended, has prohibited the Petitioner from working/performing the customs related activities at ICD Loni, Ghaziabad with immediate effect.
The grievance of the Petitioner is that though there is power in the authority to prohibit a Customs House Agent from carrying out the customs related activities nonetheless before such prohibition the Petitioner must be informed of the reasons and the regulations which have been violated. In the instant case, it is pointed out that the communication of 7-12-2010 does not disclose as to which of the regulations have been violated. Apart from, there as a general observation that the Petitioner attempted to defraud the exchequer and evade the customs duty by mis-declaration/non-declaring the goods.
On the other hand, on behalf of the Revenue the learned Counsel submits that once the attention of the Petitioner has been invited to the alleged breach of Regulation 13, at the highest the Petitioner can show cause and it would not be open to him to approach this Court to challenge the order/communication, dated 7-12-2010.
We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
We find that under the Regulation 21 there is power in the Commissioner of Customs to prohibit a Customs House Agent from working in one or more sections of the Customs Station, if he is satisfied that such Customs House Agent has not fulfilled his obligations as laid down under Regulation 13 in relation to work in that section or sections.
Thus, it is clear that such an order can be passed on the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner while issuing the order must disclose at least the material on the date or dates on which there has been a breach based on which it has arrived at satisfaction. In the instant case, apart from general observation, we find that no material has been disclosed based upon which the power under Regulation 20 has been invoked. In the absence of such disclosure, the Petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of show cause or reply to that effect.
It is also pointed out that the impugned order sets out that the power has been exercised under Regulation 20 which is the power of suspension. However, there is no order of suspension. This by itself would disclose non-application of mind on the part of the Commissioner.
Considering the above, in our opinion, the impugned order/communication, dated 7-12-2010 is illegal, therefore, it is quashed and set aside. However, it will be open to the Respondents to issue a fresh order after complying with the requirements of Regulation 21.
With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of.