Delay defeats extraordinary CHA licence suspension where Regulation 21(2) is invoked long after the alleged misconduct.

Suspension of a CHA licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 must be based on immediate action for sufficient cause, and the principle of proximity is material. A long, unexplained delay between the alleged misconduct and the suspension order makes recourse to this extraordinary power unjustified. The text also notes that an unnotified change in the constitution of the CHA, including a person functioning as a partner, could justify action under Regulation 14(b). On the facts described, the delayed suspension was not sustainable, while action under Regulation 23 was left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether suspension of the CHA licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was sustainable in view of the delay between the alleged misconduct and the order of suspension.

Analysis: The record indicated that the person concerned was in fact functioning as a partner of the CHA, and the unexplained change in the constitution of the CHA without intimation to Customs could justify action under Regulation 14(b) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. However, suspension under Regulation 21(2) is an extraordinary measure meant for immediate action on sufficient cause, and the principle of proximity is material. Where the penalty orders were dated much earlier and the suspension was taken almost a year later, the delay was held to be material and the use of the extraordinary suspension power was not justified.

Conclusion: Suspension of the licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was not sustainable; the appeal was allowed, though action under Regulation 23 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was left open.

---