Customs House Agent licence suspension fails where urgency and specific misconduct are not clearly established.

A Customs House Agent licence suspension under Regulation 21(2) was held unsustainable because the order did not identify the precise acts attributed to the agent, did not show how those acts satisfied the regulation, and did not establish any real urgency to dispense with notice. The alleged link to a misdeclared consignment and the filing of the Bill of Entry was not supported by sufficiently proximate or specific material to justify an immediate drastic step. On the recorded facts, the exercise of power lacked adequate basis, and the suspension was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether suspension of a Customs House Agent licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 was justified on the facts and whether the matter disclosed an emergent situation warranting immediate suspension without notice.

Analysis: The suspension was based on alleged involvement in a misdeclared consignment and later inquiries linking the appellant to the filing of the Bill of Entry. The order, however, did not specify the precise acts attributed to the appellant, did not establish how those acts amounted to a case attracting Regulation 21(2), and did not show any real urgency justifying dispensation with notice. The events relied upon were also not so proximate to the suspension order as to support an immediate drastic step. On the material recorded, the exercise of power was unsupported by sufficient basis.

Conclusion: The suspension order under Regulation 21(2) was not sustainable and was set aside in favour of the appellant.

---