The impugned order of suspension was unsustainable as it was passed after the conclusion of the enquiry and violated the rules of natural justice by not allowing the petitioner to reply within the specified period.

Ravi Malimath, J.—The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received specific Intelligence that M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited, Belgaum have evaded customs duty by availing duty exemptions that they were not eligible for, in the import of raw cane sugar. The import having taken place through the Karwar Port during February 2004 per vessel MV MANDARIN inasmuch as the percentage of sucrose content in the raw cane sugar did not meet the Standard Input-Output Norms (SION). The test report was alleged to be tampered with, in order to bring the sucrose contents within the range specified in the SION. In pursuance of the above Intelligence, the registered office, sugar factory and the corporate office of M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited as well as the petitioner's premises were searched. Consequent upon further proceedings, the second respondent issued a show cause notice vide Annexure 'C dated 31-12-2007 to M/s. Shree Renuka Sugars Limited as well as to the petitioner asking them to explain within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the said notice, as to why action should not be initiated on the grounds specified therein. In pursuance to the same, the first respondent issued the impugned order dated 18-1-2008, suspending the licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

2. Shri Vivek Holla, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and requires to be set aside. He contends,-

(a) that Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 would have to be met in cases where immediate action is necessary;

(b) that improper importation of goods as alleged to have taken place in February, 2004 and the impugned show cause notice being issued on 31-12-2007 therefore, does not qualify for the condition imposed therein;

(c) that in terms of the show cause notice, he was expected to reply to the same within a period of 30 days. But, however, the impugned order has been passed on 18-1-2008 much prior to the expiry of the said period;

(d) that in pursuance to the show cause notice, an enquiry was conducted and concluded five years after the alleged act by the order dated 16-3-2009;

(e) that the provisions of Regulation 20(2) of the Regulations contemplate suspension of a licence wherein an enquiry is pending or contemplated. Since the pending enquiry is concluded, he would necessarily have to face the order that has been passed and hence, the impugned order herein would not survive;

(f) that the petitioner being a Customs House Agent is alien to any fraud or otherwise that may have been committed. He is neither an importer nor the final recipient of the goods. He being a Customs House Agent is not liable for any action in this case.

3. Arguments were addressed on 29-6-2009. Even today, when further arguments were advanced, the learned Counsel for the respondents remained absent. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that an interference is called for, for the following reasons.

4. The impugned order has been passed under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, which reads as follows:

20. Suspension or revocation of licence:

(1) ....

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-regulation (1), the Commissioner of Customs may, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, suspend the licence of a Customs House Agent where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated.

Pursuant to the show cause notice, the enquiry has been completed and an order has been passed on 16-3-2009. The provisions of Regulation 20(2) would be applicable only in those cases where firstly, an immediate action is necessary and secondly, where an enquiry against such an agent is either pending or contemplated. The existence of the impugned order, when the enquiry has culminated in a final order is opposed to law. The power under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House