Customs cannot cancel certificate without hearing – Bombay High Court
Now you be the judge
A detention certificate was given to the petitioner by Bombay Customs and on the basis of this certificate the Bombay Port Trust granted remission of 80% of their charges. However, later the Port Trust realized that the detention certificate was required to be signed by the Deputy Collector and not the Assistant Collector of Customs. The party obviously took the certificate to the Customs for signature of the Deputy Collector. The Customs at that point of time not only refused to get the certificate signed by Deputy Collector but also cancelled the certificate with an endorsement “the certificate is cancelled as per the notings of the Additional Collector of Customs”. Therefore the party is in writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
The High Court, without going into the merits of the question whether the certificate required the signature of the Deputy Collector or not, observed that before cancelling the certificate, Customs was obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing as the action would result in civil consequences. Not giving such an opportunity is a clear breach of the principles of natural justice.
Further the High Court observed that the Bombay Port Trust had acted upon the certificate and even granted 80% remission. If there was a defect it should have been rectified. The High Court observed that even on merits the party was eligible for the detention certificate.
In such a situation what should the High Court do?
Netizens! please send us your comments on what would have been the probable order of the High Court or what according to you would be the correct judgement.
Please note:-
1. The writ petition was against cancellation of the licence.
2. The High Court has held that notice should have been given before cancellation
3. Even on merits, the party was eligible for the certificate
4. The Bombay Port Trust will not give remission of its charges without the certificate and they want the certificate signed by the Deputy Collector.
5. The Port Trust was also a respondent in the case.
Now should the High Court
1. ask the Customs department to issue a notice to the party for cancellation?
2. ask the Deputy Collector to sign the certificate? ( one possible objection will be that now there is no Deputy Collector)
3. direct the Port Trust not to insist on the signature by Deputy Collector?
4. send the whole case back the Customs/Port Trust for de novo consideration?
Or do you have a better option. Put on your judicial caps and let us know what would be the ideal course.