1993 (12) TMI 144 - AT - Customs

Suspension of Customs License Upheld: Authority's Discretion Justified

The court upheld the suspension of the Customs House Agents (CHA) Licence under Regulation 21, finding the Collector's immediate action justified due to ... Appeal not maintainable ordinarily against an interim order Issues:1. Suspension of Customs House Agents Licence under Regulation 21 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.2. Applicability of immediate action by the Collector.3. Compliance with principles of natural justice.4. Interpretation of subjective satisfaction of the authority.5. Challenge regarding the need for immediate action.6. Commencement and conclusion of enquiry proceedings.Suspension of Customs House Agents Licence under Regulation 21:The judgment revolves around an appeal challenging the suspension of a Customs House Agents (CHA) Licence under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The Collector of Customs, Bombay, suspended the CHA Licence of the appellants, citing their suspected involvement in the attempted export of Mandrex Tablets valued at Rs. 15,00,000. The impugned order was issued under the authority granted in sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 21, allowing the Collector to suspend a CHA Licence in cases where immediate action is deemed necessary pending an enquiry or investigation.Applicability of Immediate Action by the Collector:The primary contention raised by the appellants was that the impugned order lacked due application of mind and did not establish the existence of an 'appropriate case' necessitating immediate action. The appellants argued that the seizure, which formed the basis of the suspension, occurred three months prior to the order, questioning the need for sudden action. The appellants emphasized the importance of the order clearly articulating the grounds for invoking the suspension powers under Regulation 21(2) and cited legal precedents to support their argument.Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:The judgment highlighted that the order was not challenged on the grounds of violating principles of natural justice. It was noted that no hearing was contemplated under the relevant sub-regulation, indicating that the suspension was an interim measure pending further investigation and enquiry proceedings.Interpretation of Subjective Satisfaction of the Authority:The judgment delved into the concept of subjective satisfaction of the authority, emphasizing that where discretionary powers are vested in an authority, subjective satisfaction is inherent. The court referenced legal precedents to support the notion that such satisfaction should be evident in the order, ensuring that there is due application of mind and the decision is not arbitrary.Challenge Regarding the Need for Immediate Action:While the order did not explicitly state the need for immediate action, the judgment noted that the background provided by the appellants indicated the necessity to prevent further CHA activities due to their alleged involvement in the export of Mandrex Tablets. The court rejected the argument that the time lapse between the seizure and the suspension undermined the need for immediate action, emphasizing the ongoing investigation and the Collector's cautious approach.Commencement and Conclusion of Enquiry Proceedings:The judgment concluded that the impugned order appeared just and proper, with no interference warranted. However, it directed the concerned authority to initiate enquiry proceedings promptly, preferably within six months, and conclude the same expeditiously. The court emphasized the importance of timely resolution of the matter while ensuring a fair and thorough investigation process.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the key issues surrounding the suspension of the CHA Licence and the legal arguments presented by both parties, shedding light on the interpretation of relevant regulations and principles governing such actions.