Court overturns order barring custom house agent, stresses natural justice principles. Commissioner must provide notice and hearing.

The court set aside the order prohibiting a custom house agent from working in a specific jurisdiction due to the violation of principles of natural justice. It directed the Commissioner of Customs to issue a notice specifying the violations, allowing the agent to respond and providing a personal hearing before any prohibition decision. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice in such proceedings, highlighting that even in extreme cases requiring immediate action, a hearing opportunity must be provided.

---

---

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in an order prohibiting a custom house agent from working in a specific jurisdiction.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Customs prohibiting a petitioner from working as a custom house agent in a specific jurisdiction. The challenge is based on the violation of principles of natural justice. The court notes that the order was issued under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013, which empowers the Commissioner of Customs to prohibit a custom broker from working in certain sections if the obligations under Regulation 11 are not fulfilled. The regulation contains a non obstante clause, indicating that the power of the Commissioner is not subject to other provisions within the regulations, and does not explicitly mention the requirement of a hearing for the custom broker.

The judgment references the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in S.R. Sale & Co. vs. Union of India, where it was held that natural justice should be read into provisions where statutory regulations are silent on the matter. It emphasizes that in extreme cases requiring immediate prohibition, the Commissioner can pass such an order but must provide an opportunity for a hearing before making a final decision. Additionally, the Apex Court's decision in Uma Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. highlights that violation of natural justice is contrary to fair adjudication and conscience. The court quotes paragraph 19 of the judgment, stating that natural justice is fundamental for preventing miscarriage of justice.

Ultimately, the court sets aside the impugned order due to the violation of principles of natural justice. It directs the Commissioner of Customs to issue a notice to the petitioner specifying the violations under Regulation 11, allowing the petitioner to respond within a reasonable time and providing a personal hearing before deciding on any prohibition. The writ petition is disposed of without costs, emphasizing the importance of affording natural justice in such proceedings.

---