UJWAL INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Correctness and sustainability of Ext. P10 order passed by the respondent Commissioner invoking the power and procedure under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, prohibiting the operation of the Customs broker licence issued to the petitioner, virtually preventing him from carrying out such exercise in the Customs Station - at Cochin, is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition. The prime ground raised is that Ext. P10 is per se in violation of all the fundamental principles of natural justice, particularly, 'audi alteram partem', in so far as no opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioner before the order was passed. The case 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.

(2.) 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 the petitioner is that, all of a sudden, an employee of the petitioner was served with Ext. P9 summons on 1-12-2014 calling him for taking statement on that day itself. Accordingly, the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded and an order was passed vide Ext. P10 on 23-12-2014, which is impugned herein. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner has been virtually prohibited from carrying out the activities in the Customs station at Cochin, which is totally wrong and unsustainable and hence the challenge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that, as evident from the proceedings, steps have been taken against the petitioner on the basis of some complaint preferred by M/s. LTIE. But before arriving at any inference, it was very much necessary to have served notice to the petitioner, to explain the facts and circumstances. If the petitioner was given an opportunity to substantiate the position, Ext. P2 authorization would have been brought to the notice of the respondent. It is stated that, as per Regulation 11(a) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, the respondent ought to have required the petitioner to produce authorization. The authority of the petitioner to have acted on behalf of the company - M/s. LTIE in respect of the earlier transactions, by submitting shipping bills dated 26-9-2013 and 29-1-2013, is not under dispute. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Ext. P10 issued by the respondent is liable to be intercepted by virtue of the law declared on the point viz. the Apex Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills v. Union of India, 1981 AIR(SC) 818], Division Bench of the Bombay High Court as per the verdict dated 9-5-2013 in W.P. (C) No. 1102 of 2013 [: 2013 (296) E.L.T. 289 (Bom.)] and a Single Member Bench of the Calcutta High Court, vide the verdict dated 10-6-2014 in W.P. No. 471 of 2014 [: 2014 (308) E.L.T. 45 (Cal.)].