Preventive suspension of CHA licence upheld where immediate action and pending enquiry were supported by prima facie reasons.

Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 permits suspension of a CHA licence where immediate action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. The Calcutta High Court stated that "immediate action" must be read with those accompanying conditions, and upheld suspension where the order recorded detailed prima facie reasons, including alleged misuse of the CHA stamp and the licence holder's involvement. The Court also held that such preventive suspension was not vitiated by breach of natural justice or equivalent to blacklisting, because it rested on prima facie satisfaction and not final adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suspension of the Customs House Agent's licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 1984 was valid on the facts, particularly on the requirements of immediate action, appropriate case, and pending or contemplated enquiry.

Analysis: Section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Regulation 21 of the Custom House Agents Licencing Regulations, 1984 permit suspension or revocation of a licence on specified grounds, and in appropriate cases the Commissioner may, notwithstanding the ordinary procedure, suspend the licence where immediate action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. The order recorded detailed reasons based on a prima facie investigation, including the involvement of the licence holder and misuse of the CHA stamp. The Court held that "immediate action" is not to be read in isolation and must be understood with the other statutory conditions. Since an enquiry was pending or contemplated and the impugned order disclosed reasons showing urgent preventive action, the requirement of immediate action was satisfied. The Court also held that the order was not vitiated by breach of natural justice or equated with blacklisting, because the suspension was based on a prima facie satisfaction and not a final adjudication.

Conclusion: The suspension under Regulation 21(2) was upheld and the challenge failed.

---