Customs House Agent suspension requires urgency and a minimal pre-decisional hearing where natural justice is not excluded.

Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 permits suspension only in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. The suspension order had to record satisfaction of these statutory preconditions because it imposed serious civil consequences and there was no appeal or merits review. On the facts, the recorded grounds did not show real urgency, particularly after seizure of the goods and initiation of criminal proceedings, and a minimal pre-decisional hearing was required because the statute did not exclude it and no compelling necessity was shown to dispense with it. The suspension was therefore invalid for breach of audi alteram partem, while the challenge to the vires of Regulation 21(2) was left undecided.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suspension of the Customs House Agent's licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was in accordance with the Regulation and valid in law, including compliance with principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Regulation 21(2) permits suspension only in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. The order had to disclose that this extraordinary power was exercised with due regard to the statutory preconditions, because the suspension entailed serious civil consequences and there was no appeal or review on merits. The recorded grounds did not show satisfaction that immediate action was necessary, and the circumstances disclosed no real urgency after seizure of the goods and initiation of criminal proceedings. The Court also held that, in the facts, a minimal pre-decisional hearing was required since the statute did not exclude it and no compelling necessity was shown to dispense with it. The challenge to the vires of Regulation 21(2) was not finally decided.

Conclusion: The suspension order was not in accordance with Regulation 21(2) and was vitiated for breach of audi alteram partem; it was struck down, with liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

---