1995 (4) TMI 288 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues: Challenge to suspension of Custom House Agent (CHA) License under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984; Violation of Regulation 21(2) and procedural irregularities in the suspension order; Jurisdictional validity of the suspension order; Petitioner's right to livelihood and Article 21 violation; Failure to exhaust alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Regulation 23(8) of the Regulations.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged the suspension of his CHA License under the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, contending that the order was without jurisdiction and violated Regulation 21(2). The petitioner argued that despite waiting over a year for the conclusion of any inquiry and restoration of his license, no action was taken. It was emphasized that the petitioner's livelihood was at stake, raising concerns of Article 21 violation. The respondent, through an affidavit, highlighted the alleged involvement of the petitioner in gross undervaluation and forgery related to imported goods. The suspension was justified under Regulation 21(2) due to the ongoing investigation and suspected evasion of duty amounting to significant sums.

The court scrutinized the procedural aspects of the suspension order and found that the Collector had not followed the prescribed procedure under Regulation 23 for suspending the license. It was observed that immediate action under Regulation 21(2) was not warranted, as evident from the lack of urgency in the suspension decision taken after a considerable delay. The court noted the absence of a time limit for completing the investigation and issuing a show cause notice, emphasizing the need for expeditious proceedings to prevent the order from becoming void due to unexplained delays.

Furthermore, the court examined the provisions of Regulation 21 and Regulation 23, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specified procedures for suspending or revoking a license. It was acknowledged that the petitioner had not exhausted the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under Regulation 23(8) of the Regulations. Despite allowing the petition and setting aside the suspension order, the court clarified that this decision did not preclude the authorities from taking further action against the petitioner following the proper procedure outlined in Regulation 23. The court awarded costs to the petitioner and stressed the significance of following due process in regulatory actions against license holders.