2015 (2) TMI 1346 - HC - Customs

Seeking application for stay of the order made under Regulation 20(3) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - HELD THAT - Considering that the order is purely interim and has taken note of the previous order of this Court and also the contentions of the appellant no interference is called for. At the same time this Court is conscious of the fact that enquiry proceedings under Regulation 22 have got prolonged to an extent. The respondents are directed to complete the enquiry proceedings after giving two opportunities to the appellant in accordance with provisions of Regulations and other provisions of law and pass final orders at the earliest preferably within three months from today. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for stay of order under Regulation 20(3) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 by CESTAT.

Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue where the petitioner was aggrieved by the CESTAT's rejection of the application for stay of the order made under Regulation 20(3) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The Court noted its previous intervention in a related writ petition and the delay in decision-making by the competent authority. The Commissioner had issued a notice to the appellant and confirmed the suspension during the enquiry under Regulation 22. The CESTAT, in the impugned order, declined the application for stay, citing the High Court's previous directive to pass a fresh order under Regulation 20(3). The Court, after hearing the appellant's counsel, decided that the interim order did not warrant interference, considering the previous court order and the appellant's contentions. However, the Court acknowledged the prolonged enquiry proceedings under Regulation 22 and directed the respondents to complete the proceedings within three months, giving the appellant two opportunities as per the regulations and other provisions of the law.

The judgment emphasized the importance of following the legal procedures and timelines prescribed under the relevant regulations. It highlighted the Court's role in ensuring fairness and adherence to due process while balancing the interests of the parties involved. The Court's decision to dismiss the appeal in the specified terms aimed to provide clarity and direction for the completion of the enquiry proceedings within a reasonable timeframe. The judgment underscored the significance of conducting proceedings efficiently and in compliance with the law to uphold the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.