<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1993 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83187</link>
    <description>Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 confers a wide interim power to suspend a licence where immediate action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. For such interlocutory action, the order need not set out a full evidentiary discussion, but it must show that the authority applied its mind and reached prima facie satisfaction on the need for suspension. On the facts, the suspension referenced suspected involvement in attempted export of prohibited goods and was supported by an ongoing investigation. The delay between seizure and suspension did not invalidate the order, as it reflected restraint rather than undue haste. The suspension was therefore upheld as consistent with Regulation 21(2).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:53:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120332" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 144 - CEGAT, BOMBAY</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83187</link>
      <description>Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 confers a wide interim power to suspend a licence where immediate action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. For such interlocutory action, the order need not set out a full evidentiary discussion, but it must show that the authority applied its mind and reached prima facie satisfaction on the need for suspension. On the facts, the suspension referenced suspected involvement in attempted export of prohibited goods and was supported by an ongoing investigation. The delay between seizure and suspension did not invalidate the order, as it reflected restraint rather than undue haste. The suspension was therefore upheld as consistent with Regulation 21(2).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 15 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>