<?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>1989 (3) TMI 139 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42601</link>
    <description>Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984 authorises immediate interim suspension where urgent action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. The High Court held that the Collector could suspend the CHA licence without prior hearing because the order recorded detailed reasons, including prima facie involvement in attempted export of narcotic goods and related lapses. Natural justice was not violated since Regulation 23 provides a later enquiry and opportunity of defence before any final order, so audi alteram partem was satisfied through the post-suspension process. The interim suspension was upheld as a speaking order based on recorded urgency and misconduct.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 11:50:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=81130" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (3) TMI 139 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42601</link>
      <description>Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984 authorises immediate interim suspension where urgent action is necessary and an enquiry is pending or contemplated. The High Court held that the Collector could suspend the CHA licence without prior hearing because the order recorded detailed reasons, including prima facie involvement in attempted export of narcotic goods and related lapses. Natural justice was not violated since Regulation 23 provides a later enquiry and opportunity of defence before any final order, so audi alteram partem was satisfied through the post-suspension process. The interim suspension was upheld as a speaking order based on recorded urgency and misconduct.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 02 Mar 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42601</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>