Sanjeev Maggu vs Commissioner of Customs General

By this writ petition, an employee of one M/s. Shankar Clearing and Forwarding Agency, a custom house agent (In short "CHA"), seeks to challenge an order dated 21 May 2001, issued by the Deputy Commissioner (Policy), informing the CHA that the G-Card issued in favour of its employee, the petitioner herein, has been cancelled with immediate effect. The CHA has been directed to surrender the G-Card immediately.

Some investigations were undertaken by the Customs Department against one M/s. Hind Overseas, which apparently revealed some involvement of the petitioner in their nefarious activities. Thus, for his acts of omission or commission, a penalty of Rs. 1.00 Lakh was imposed on the petitioner u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Against the levy of said penalty, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short). Before the Tribunal, the levy of penalty on merits was not pressed and in fact the correctness of the said order was accepted by the petitioner. However, accepting the contention of the petitioner that the penalty was on the higher side, the Tribunal, vide order dated 2 July 2001, reduced the same to Rs. 25,000/-, which was accepted by Counsel for the petitioner to be quite reasonable.

It seems that in the meanwhile the impugned letter was issued to the employer of the petitioner.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. It is strenuously urged by learned Counsel for the petitioner that before directing his employer to surrender the G-Card, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner or to his employer. It is, thus, submitted that the impugned order, being violative of principles of natural justice, is unsustainable. Learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that since the petitioner was involved in a serious offence and a criminal complaint has also been filed against him, the respondents were justified in asking his employer to surrender the G-Card with a view to prevent the petitioner from indulging in similar unwarranted activities in future.

It is true that the principle of natural justice can neither be rigid nor can it put in a legal strait jacket and these principles and procedures have to be applied keeping in view the situation and set of circumstances of each case.

But what is required to be seen is whether a person liable to be directly affected by the proposed administrative action has been given adequate notice to effectively meet the case against him.

In the present case, we are of the considered opinion that in view the fact that the impugned order materially affects the rights of the CHA and the petitioner, an opportunity of hearing should have been granted to them before issuing the impugned direction to surrender the G-Card issued in the name of their employee, namely the petitioner.

Accordingly, we set aside the impugned letter and direct the respondents to afford an opportunity of being heard to the CHA and pass a fresh order on the question of surrender/issue or renewal of the G-Card, in question. It is, however, clarified that this order will not be construed as automatic revival of the G-Card in question.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

Copy of the order be issued dasti to the Counsel for the parties.