2000 (5) TMI 48 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of Licence of Custom House Agents u/r 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 1984.
2. Applicability and interpretation of "immediate action" u/r 21(2).
3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.

Summary:

Issue 1: Suspension of Licence of Custom House Agents u/r 21(2)
The writ petition concerns the suspension of the licence of a Custom House Agent (CHA) firm by the Commissioner of Customs (Administration), Custom House, Calcutta, u/r 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 1984. The suspension was based on the involvement of the firm and its partners in manipulating import consignments, resulting in a significant loss of government revenue. The firm allowed unauthorized use of its stamp for clearing imported consignments, which was admitted by one of the partners, Shri Milan Gupta.

Issue 2: Applicability and Interpretation of "Immediate Action" u/r 21(2)
The petitioners argued that the suspension did not qualify as "immediate action" since the goods were imported in December 1999, and the suspension order was issued on April 3, 2000. They contended that Regulation 21(2) should not apply if Regulation 21(1) is applicable. The court analyzed the terms "appropriate case," "immediate action," and "notwithstanding" within the context of Regulation 21(2). It concluded that "immediate action" is justified if an enquiry is pending or contemplated, and the timing of the suspension aligns with the completion of a prima facie investigation.

Issue 3: Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice
The petitioners cited various judgments to argue that the suspension violated principles of natural justice and equated to blacklisting without due process. However, the court found that the suspension order was based on a prima facie investigation and was not a final adjudication. The court held that the suspension did not violate natural justice principles as the petitioners were given an opportunity for a hearing, and the order was justified under the circumstances.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the suspension of the CHA licence. It ruled that the suspension was a necessary immediate action based on the prima facie findings of misconduct and pending enquiry. The court found no violation of natural justice principles and no grounds to equate the suspension with blacklisting. The interim order was vacated, and no costs were awarded.