Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2006 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (2) TMI 179 - HC - CustomsSuspension of licence - Misconduct of the Customs House Agent - Power of Commissioner - Whether the CESTAT was right in holding that the suspension of licence was bad in law for non-service of prior notice to the delinquent licence holder? - HELD THAT:- It was a case for invoking Regulation 20(2) of the said Regulations which is meant only in cases where immediate action is necessary. In such a case even without giving notice the licence could be suspended. We make it clear that the observations of the CESTAT that in all cases of suspension the procedure under Regulation 22(1) ought to have been followed in the sense prior notice before suspension ought to be given cannot be sustained. A bare reading of Regulation 20(2) very clearly indicates that where immediate action is necessary the Commissioner of Customs has been granted such a power to suspend such licence where an enquiry against such agent is pending or even contemplated. Accordingly we answer the aforesaid question of law to the effect that it is not mandatory that in all cases of suspension, Regulation 22(1) ought to be followed. Whereas in cases where immediate action is necessary the Commissioner of Customs is fully empowered to suspend the licence where an enquiry against such an agent is pending or contemplated as per Regulation 20(2). Thus, there is absolute no material with regard to involvement of the Respondent-Clearing Agency excepting that it's former employee was collecting illegal gratification for one of the Appraiser. Therefore there is no substance in the Appeal. Appeal stands disposed of.
|