2004 (4) TMI 86 - HC - Customs

Writ - Alternate appellate remedy - Customs House Agent - Licence - Suspension pending enquiry

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the interim order of suspension.
2. Jurisdiction and exercise of power under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004.
3. Applicability of appellate provisions under Regulation 22(8).
4. Breach of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Interim Order of Suspension:
The petitioners, previously Custom House Clearing Agents, challenged an interim suspension order dated 31-3-04, issued under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004. This order was linked to an incident from 2000 involving the clearance of imported goods using a forged advance license. The Revenue Intelligence Department and CBI found prima facie evidence of fraud and forgery, leading to the suspension. The petitioners argued that the suspension was arbitrary and lacked justification, as the order merely repeated the language of Regulation 20(2) without detailing the necessity for immediate action. The Court noted that the suspension order appeared punitive rather than preventive, as intended by the regulation.

2. Jurisdiction and Exercise of Power under Regulation 20(2):
Regulation 20(2) allows the Commissioner of Customs to suspend a Customs House Agent's license if immediate action is necessary during a pending or contemplated inquiry. The petitioners contended that the suspension was not justified as the alleged misconduct was discovered in March 2003, yet no immediate action was taken until a year later. The Court emphasized that the suspension power should be exercised with clear reasons and circumstances necessitating immediate action, which were absent in this case.

3. Applicability of Appellate Provisions under Regulation 22(8):
The petitioners argued that Regulation 22(8) did not provide an appellate remedy for the suspension order. The Court clarified that Regulation 22(8) allows appeals against decisions or orders under Regulation 20, including suspension orders. The Court rejected the petitioners' argument, stating that the appellate provision under Section 129A of the Customs Act applies to such orders.

4. Breach of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioners claimed the suspension order violated principles of natural justice as it was issued without providing an opportunity for a hearing or detailed reasons. The Court agreed, stating that the order lacked transparency and did not comply with the constitutional mandate of Article 14. The Court highlighted that any adverse order affecting rights must be accompanied by reasons and an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion:
The Court found that the suspension order was not issued in bona fide exercise of jurisdiction and lacked justification for immediate action. The order was set aside, and the respondents were restrained from taking further action based on the impugned order. The Court emphasized the importance of following established procedures and ensuring transparency and fairness in administrative decisions.