Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 736 - HC - CustomsPrinciples of natural justice - suspension of CHA License - invocation of Regulation 11(2) of HCCAR, 2009 - whether an immediate action is necessary to suspend the license, pending enquiry? - Held that:- Perusal of the Regulation 11(2) of HCCAR, 2009, would show that the Commissioner of Customs is empowered to suspend the approval granted to Customs Cargo Services Provider in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, pending enquiry or where the enquiry is contemplated - it is evident that action under Regulation 11(2) can be taken only when the Commissioner of Customs is of the view that immediate action is necessary for suspending the license. Needless to say that such consideration must explicitly available in the order of suspension. It is relevant to note that Regulation 11(1) empowers the very same Commissioner to suspend or revoke the license and the procedure to be followed for suspension or revocation of the license is contemplated under Regulation 12. Perusal of the Regulation 12 would show that before doing so, the licensee should be put on notice and he must be heard. However, Regulation 11(2) can be invoked for suspending the license only when the Commissioner of Customs feels and comes to a conclusion that immediate action is necessary to suspend the license. Perusal of the impugned order in this writ petition would show that no such consideration was made by the Commissioner of Customs except extracting Regulation 11(2) and stating that an enquiry is contemplated in this case and that allowing the petitioner to continue for work will seriously jeopardize the Customs duties and security of Cargo. The respondent has not stated any other reason anywhere as to why an immediate action is required in this case - This Court has considered the similar provision made under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agent License Regulation in 1994 (11) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT [1994 (11) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where it was held that In the absence of any indication that there was application of mind by the Collector on the aspect as to whether immediate action was necessary, in my opinion, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Thus, the present impugned order passed under Regulation 11(2) without there being any finding as to why immediate action is necessary to suspend the license, cannot be sustained even though the respondent is entitled to proceed against the petitioner under 11(1) after issuing notice to them - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|