Prohibition order against a Customs Broker became infructuous after the linked inquiry ended and the operational registration expired.

A prohibition order against a Customs Broker under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was treated as dependent on pending inquiry proceedings, even though the prohibition power could operate independently in principle. Because the related inquiry no longer survived and the broker had not sought continuation of Mumbai operations before expiry of the relevant registration, the order had become ineffective by lapse of time. No subsisting cause remained for appellate interference, and the challenge was held infructuous.

---

---

Issues: Whether the continuation of the prohibition order against the Customs Broker survived after the connected inquiry proceedings were dropped and the licence validity for Mumbai operations had expired, so as to warrant interference.

Analysis: The prohibition under Regulation 23 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 was treated as capable of operating independently of the inquiry proceedings, but the order under challenge had itself been made to continue only pending inquiry under Regulation 20. Once the inquiry proceedings no longer survived and the broker had not sought continuation of operations for the relevant Mumbai registration before expiry, no effective relief remained to be granted. On the facts recorded, the order had become ineffective by lapse of time and the expiry of the operational registration.

Conclusion: The challenge to the prohibition order did not survive and no interference was called for.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as the impugned prohibition order had become infructuous upon expiry of the relevant cause of action.

Ratio Decidendi: A prohibition order that is expressly linked to pending inquiry proceedings may become infructuous when the underlying proceedings cease to survive and the relevant operational period has expired, leaving no subsisting cause for appellate interference.

---