Temporary customs prohibition cannot continue once licence proceedings begin, and fair hearing is required in Regulation 21 action.

Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2014 is described as a temporary protective measure meant to prevent interference with inquiry immediately after an offence. The text states that once substantive suspension or revocation proceedings are underway, continued use of the prohibition mechanism is not appropriate as a substitute for regular licence adjudication. It also notes that prohibition proceedings must afford a meaningful opportunity of defence, and that denial of fair hearing renders the communication vulnerable on natural justice grounds. The result recorded is that the prohibition communication was quashed, while the merits of the pending customs appeal were left untouched.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a prohibitory action under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2014 could be sustained when substantive proceedings concerning the licence were already in progress. (ii) Whether the impugned communication could be maintained in the face of the petitioner's grievance regarding denial of fair opportunity in the prohibition proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether a prohibitory action under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2014 could be sustained when substantive proceedings concerning the licence were already in progress.

Analysis: Regulation 21 is intended to operate immediately after the commission of an offence, to keep the Customs House Agent away from the connected offices and sections and prevent interference with the inquiry. Its purpose is temporary and protective. Once substantive proceedings concerning suspension or revocation of the licence are initiated under the corresponding regulatory framework, the prohibition under Regulation 21 cannot be used as a continuing device to prevent the agent from carrying on business. The Court found that prolonged use of the prohibition mechanism after investigations and parallel proceedings had progressed made the measure redundant.

Conclusion: The prohibition under Regulation 21 could not be sustained as a continuing measure in the facts of the case, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned communication could be maintained in the face of the petitioner's grievance regarding denial of fair opportunity in the prohibition proceedings.

Analysis: The petitioner had challenged the communication on the basis that fair opportunity was not afforded in the prohibition proceedings. The Court noted that an earlier prohibition order on the same line had already been interfered with for non-observance of natural justice, and held that the respondents were not right in treating the Regulation 21 proceedings as excluding a meaningful opportunity of defence. The communication was therefore vulnerable on fairness grounds as well.

Conclusion: The impugned communication could not be sustained, and the petitioner succeeded on this issue as well.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed and the impugned prohibition communication was quashed, leaving the merits of the pending customs appeal untouched.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary prohibition under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2014 cannot be used as a substitute for or continuation of substantive licence proceedings, and it loses efficacy once the matter has moved into the stage of regular adjudication.

---