LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-553

ANINUL KHAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

Decided On May 27, 2014
Aninul Khan Appellant
V/S
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ISSUE notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, Advocate accepts notice. The petitioner is a 'G' Card holder, issued in his favour by respondent No. 2. This 'G' Card (G Card No. 21/2006) allows him to access the Customs Areas to carry out activities on the part of its principal/employer. He is aggrieved by orders dated 22 -1 -2014 and 14 -3 -2014 issued by respondent No. 2 to the Customs House Agent (current employer of the petitioner) to surrender the 'G' Card. It is contended that the order is perverse inasmuch as, it has divested him of his livelihood and visited him with extremely adverse circumstances. The petitioner relies upon the provisions of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 and submits that in the absence of express substantial order, the direction to surrender the 'G' Card in fact, amounts to depriving him of his right to livelihood without affording him any hearing.

(2.) THE petitioner relies upon the previous order of this Court in Sanjeev Maggu v. Commissioner of Customs : CWP No. 1849/2003, decided on 23 -4 -2003 [ : 2010 (255) E.L.T. 62 (Del.)]. The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that there is no provision in regulations entitling the petitioner to a hearing or a show cause notice of the kind that the petitioner claims as a pre -condition for suspension and that till date the CHA licence has not been suspended. It is contended that the allegations against the petitioner are serious enough to warrant some kind of a preventive action.

(3.) THE CHA regulations, although strictly not applicable in the facts of this case since the petitioner, concededly, is an employee of the CHA licencee, mandate by Regulation 19(1) that the Commissioner may in appropriate cases where 'immediate action is necessary' suspended licences of a Customs Agent where an inquiry is contemplated against him. Regulation 19(2) is important in the facts of this case; it mandates that the Commissioner has to within 15 days from suspension give an opportunity to the CHA for a hearing and after such hearing pass an order as it deems appropriate, revoking the suspension or continuing it. In either case the order has to be made within 15 days of the grant of hearing.