Customs House Agent licence suspension beyond jurisdiction without notice or hearing was held unsustainable.

A Customs authority could not suspend a Customs House Agent licence issued by another Commissioner merely because the agent was operating within its jurisdiction on the basis of an intimation in Form C. The Chennai Commissioner could withdraw permission to operate within his jurisdiction in accordance with law and natural justice, but not suspend the licence itself. Suspension under Regulation 20(2) was also unsustainable because no show-cause notice or hearing was given, and the record did not support the stated grounds. The impugned order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Customs authority at Chennai had jurisdiction to suspend the operation of a Customs House Agent licence issued by another Commissioner and whether the suspension could be sustained without notice or hearing.

Analysis: The licence had been issued under Regulation 9(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, and only intimation in Form C had been given to the Chennai Commissioner for operating within his jurisdiction. The impugned suspension under Regulation 20(2) was made without issuing show-cause notice or affording an opportunity of hearing. The stated grounds were found unsupported by the record: the export licence and CITES certificate were available, the shipping bill contained no field for the particulars complained of, and the alleged past violation had not been the subject of any prior action. On the jurisdictional aspect, the Commissioner who had granted permission to operate within his jurisdiction could withdraw that permission in accordance with law and natural justice, but could not suspend the licence itself issued by another Commissioner.

Conclusion: The suspension order was without jurisdiction and was unsustainable; the appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside.

---