Customs house agent licence suspension sustained where penalty findings and timely action supported the exercise of regulatory power.

Suspension of a customs house agent's licence under Regulation 20(2) was upheld where it rested on an order-in-original under customs penalty proceedings that found complicity and imposed penalty. The Court treated that order as a sufficient basis for invoking the suspension power, noted that the initial suspension was made within the prescribed time after receipt of the order, and accepted that the agent had been heard before the final order. Although an appellate remedy existed, that did not by itself exclude writ jurisdiction, but no jurisdictional error, breach of natural justice, perversity, or absence of reasons was shown. The challenge therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order suspending the customs house agent's licence under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents' Licensing Regulations, 2004 was without jurisdiction or otherwise liable to be interfered with in writ jurisdiction despite availability of an appellate remedy.

Analysis: The suspension was founded on an order in original passed pursuant to proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, which had culminated in findings of complicity and imposition of penalty. The order in original was treated as a sufficient basis for invoking Regulation 20(2), and the Court found that the initial suspension had been taken within the prescribed time after receipt of that order. The petitioner had also been given an opportunity of hearing before the final order. The existence of an appellate remedy did not by itself bar writ jurisdiction, but no ground warranting interference on the basis of lack of jurisdiction, breach of natural justice, perversity or absence of reasons was established.

Conclusion: The challenge to the suspension order failed, and the writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds urged.

---