<?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>2018 (11) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369901</link>
    <description>Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2014 is described as a temporary protective measure meant to prevent interference with inquiry immediately after an offence. The text states that once substantive suspension or revocation proceedings are underway, continued use of the prohibition mechanism is not appropriate as a substitute for regular licence adjudication. It also notes that prohibition proceedings must afford a meaningful opportunity of defence, and that denial of fair hearing renders the communication vulnerable on natural justice grounds. The result recorded is that the prohibition communication was quashed, while the merits of the pending customs appeal were left untouched.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=540778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (11) TMI 244 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369901</link>
      <description>Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2014 is described as a temporary protective measure meant to prevent interference with inquiry immediately after an offence. The text states that once substantive suspension or revocation proceedings are underway, continued use of the prohibition mechanism is not appropriate as a substitute for regular licence adjudication. It also notes that prohibition proceedings must afford a meaningful opportunity of defence, and that denial of fair hearing renders the communication vulnerable on natural justice grounds. The result recorded is that the prohibition communication was quashed, while the merits of the pending customs appeal were left untouched.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>