<?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>1987 (1) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41865</link>
    <description>Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 permits suspension only in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. The suspension order had to record satisfaction of these statutory preconditions because it imposed serious civil consequences and there was no appeal or merits review. On the facts, the recorded grounds did not show real urgency, particularly after seizure of the goods and initiation of criminal proceedings, and a minimal pre-decisional hearing was required because the statute did not exclude it and no compelling necessity was shown to dispense with it. The suspension was therefore invalid for breach of audi alteram partem, while the challenge to the vires of Regulation 21(2) was left undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:52:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=80394" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41865</link>
      <description>Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 permits suspension only in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. The suspension order had to record satisfaction of these statutory preconditions because it imposed serious civil consequences and there was no appeal or merits review. On the facts, the recorded grounds did not show real urgency, particularly after seizure of the goods and initiation of criminal proceedings, and a minimal pre-decisional hearing was required because the statute did not exclude it and no compelling necessity was shown to dispense with it. The suspension was therefore invalid for breach of audi alteram partem, while the challenge to the vires of Regulation 21(2) was left undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=41865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>