Preventive customs broker suspension must be prompt and consistent; unexplained delay and unequal treatment made it unsustainable.

Preventive suspension of a customs broker licence was found unsustainable because the order was issued nearly a year after the relevant statement without any demonstrated urgency. The delay undermined the basis for immediate preventive action, so the suspension could not be justified on that ground. The suspension was also held unjustified where another similarly placed customs broker involved in comparable allegations had obtained revocation, and no distinguishing basis for unequal treatment was shown. Consistent treatment in common factual circumstances was required, and the licence was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the suspension of the customs broker licence was sustainable when the action was taken after substantial delay and no immediate urgency was shown; (ii) Whether differential treatment vis-a -vis another similarly placed customs broker could justify continuation of the suspension.

Issue (i): Whether the suspension of the customs broker licence was sustainable when the action was taken after substantial delay and no immediate urgency was shown.

Analysis: The alleged contravention related to the customs broker's knowledge of undervaluation and the supposed breach of Regulations 10(d), 10(e) and 10(m) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. However, the suspension order was issued nearly a year after the relevant statement had been recorded. Preventive suspension is expected to be prompt and justified by immediacy, and the record did not disclose any urgency warranting such delayed action. The delay undermined the basis for suspension.

Conclusion: The suspension was not sustainable on the ground of unexplained delay and absence of urgency, and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether differential treatment vis-a -vis another similarly placed customs broker could justify continuation of the suspension.

Analysis: A customs broker involved in a similar allegation arising from the same import-related offence had already obtained revocation of suspension. Where allegations and surrounding circumstances are common, fairness requires similar treatment unless a distinguishing basis is shown. No such justification was established for treating the appellant differently, and the unequal treatment reinforced the conclusion that the impugned suspension was unjustified.

Conclusion: The discriminatory treatment was unjustified, and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The suspension order could not be sustained and the customs broker licence stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A preventive suspension of a customs broker licence must be prompt, supported by demonstrable urgency, and applied consistently where similarly placed persons are involved; unexplained delay and unequal treatment render the suspension unsustainable.

---