The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that the power to suspend a Customs Cargo Service Provider (CCSP) under Regulation 11(2) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 (HCCAR) is an exceptional and preventive power that cannot be used to impose an indefinite suspension. 

The bench of Ajay Sharma (Judicial Member) and A.K. Jyotishi  (Technical Member) observed that once the immediate threat has been neutralised, or when the Department fails to undertake verification or initiate the prescribed inquiry within a reasonable period, continuation of suspension can acquire a punitive character, which Regulation 11(2) does not permit. 

BUY NOW: E-Magazine: 100 Landmark Customs Judgments

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the jurisdictional Commissioner to restore the licence, while permitting the Department to impose necessary safeguards for the movement of imported and export goods. 

The appellant/assessee operates the ICTPL/Globicon Container Freight Station (CFS) at Nhava Sheva and functions as a Customs Cargo Service Provider. Its approval had originally been granted under Regulation 10 of HCCAR, 2009 in December 2016 and was subsequently renewed, with the last renewal taking place in August 2023. 

The dispute arose after the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) informed Customs about the seizure of consignments of Chinese-origin fireworks/firecrackers at the CFS. According to the investigation, one container declared to contain “Household Items” was allegedly being removed from the customs area without the requisite Bill of Entry or customs permission. DRI officers intervened after receiving information regarding the removal, and examination allegedly revealed Chinese-origin fireworks, the import of which was restricted.

The Department alleged several serious lapses, including failure to prevent unauthorised access, inadequate maintenance of records relating to movement and handling of cargo, unauthorised removal of imported goods, failure to ensure cargo security and allegations relating to bypassing of scanning procedures. The Commissioner accordingly suspended the CCSP approval with immediate effect on April 13, 2026 under Regulation 11(2) of HCCAR. 

A post-decisional hearing was subsequently granted to the CFS on April 16 and May 4, 2026. Thereafter, by order dated May 5, 2026, the Commissioner continued the suspension without prescribing any outer time-limit. The Tribunal noted that this open-ended continuation of the suspension was the central issue before it. 

The dispute had an earlier procedural history. The Tribunal had initially decided the matter on June 8, 2026. That order was challenged before the Bombay High Court, which, on June 18, 2026, set aside the Tribunal’s order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Dr. Sujay Kantawala, the Counsel for the CFS had specifically argued that Regulation 11(2) was intended to operate as a preventive measure rather than a punitive one and that continuing the suspension after the relevant material had been supplied to the investigating agencies effectively transformed the preventive action into punishment. The High Court restored the appeal before the Tribunal and directed that it be heard afresh by a different Bench. 

The principal question before the Tribunal was whether continuation of the May 5, 2026 suspension under Regulation 11(2) of HCCAR, 2009 “until further orders” was legally sustainable.

The Tribunal undertook a detailed comparison between Regulations 11(1) and 11(2). Under Regulation 11(1), suspension or revocation is subject to the elaborate procedure prescribed under Regulation 12, including notice, submission of a defence, inquiry, consideration of evidence, and an opportunity to make representations against the inquiry report.

By contrast, Regulation 11(2) permits immediate suspension where “immediate action is necessary” and an inquiry against the CCSP is pending or contemplated. The Tribunal therefore characterised Regulation 11(1) as the ordinary rule and Regulation 11(2) as the exceptional provision. 

The Tribunal held that suspension under Regulation 11(2) can be justified only when the Commissioner independently concludes that immediate action is necessary to prevent a continuing threat.

According to the Bench, material sufficient to initiate proceedings under Regulation 11(1) cannot, by itself, justify an immediate suspension under Regulation 11(2). There must be independent reasons demonstrating a real possibility that the alleged illegality or damage would continue unless immediate suspension was ordered. 

The Tribunal emphasised that the underlying principle is that “prevention is better than cure.” However, merely stating that suspension is necessary to prevent further illegality is insufficient. The authority must identify circumstances showing a real and continuing threat and record the reasons for its apprehension.

One of the most significant observations of the Tribunal concerned the duration of the suspension.

More than 100 days had elapsed from the initial suspension order dated April 13, 2026. The Tribunal noted that HCCAR does not prescribe a specific outer time-limit for suspension under Regulation 11(2), but held that this does not confer an unrestricted power to continue suspension indefinitely. 

The Bench found that no verification had been initiated, no inspection of the CFS had been conducted for assessing the remedial measures, and no show cause notice had been issued to commence the inquiry contemplated under Regulation 12.

The Tribunal held that a suspension initially justified as an emergency preventive measure cannot continue indefinitely merely because an investigation remains pending. If the Department requires continued regulatory action, it can invoke Regulation 11(1) and follow the statutory procedure under Regulation 12. 

The Tribunal specifically rejected the proposition that the mere pendency of the DRI investigation could justify continuation of the CCSP suspension.

It observed that allowing the suspension to continue solely because the DRI investigation remained incomplete would effectively rewrite Regulation 11(2) by substituting the statutory concept of an “enquiry” with a “DRI investigation.” The Tribunal held that such an approach was impermissible. 

The Bench explained that Regulation 11(2) derives its legitimacy from urgency. It permits the Department to dispense with the prior notice and hearing contemplated under the ordinary procedure because the situation allegedly requires immediate intervention. That exceptional dispensation, however, cannot become a permanent or continuing power of suspension.

Once the immediate threat is neutralised, or once a reasonable period passes without meaningful verification or further regulatory action, the legal foundation for continuing the preventive suspension under Regulation 11(2) disappears. 

The Tribunal also found significance in the fact that, despite the Department’s stated concerns regarding revenue, public safety and national security, the CFS was permitted to clear more than 3,000 containers during the suspension period.

The Department had not imposed additional customs officers, special monitoring arrangements or other protective mechanisms while these containers were being cleared. The Tribunal considered this difficult to reconcile with the assertion that immediate suspension was necessary to address an ongoing and imminent threat. 

The Bench held that this circumstance itself indicated an absence of the urgency contemplated by Regulation 11(2).

Another factor relied upon by the Tribunal was the absence of adverse findings in earlier official inspections.

The Customs inspection conducted at the CFS on December 18, 2025 did not record deficiencies in the security or access-control mechanisms. Similarly, an earlier inspection on January 8, 2025 did not identify shortcomings concerning security infrastructure or access control.

The Tribunal held that these contemporaneous records were relevant because they did not demonstrate that the CFS had previously been found deficient in complying with its security obligations under HCCAR. 

Accordingly, the Bench found that the material relied upon by the Revenue primarily consisted of investigative material such as CCTV footage, photographs and vehicle and personnel records. Such material, by itself, could not be equated with an objective assessment by the licensing authority demonstrating an immediate continuing risk warranting the extraordinary power under Regulation 11(2).

The CFS had placed several corrective and preventive measures before the authorities. These included strengthened gate controls, enhanced security personnel, additional monitoring of container scanning, revised seal-cutting procedures, photographic documentation and revised Standard Operating Procedures.

The Tribunal also noted subsequent measures such as digital gate-entry and exit systems using OCR technology, deployment of the CFS’s own surveyors, enhanced CCTV systems, revised scanning and cargo-handling SOPs and strengthened authorisation protocols. 

An independent review report dated June 24, 2026 had also assessed the revised SOPs and process-control framework and concluded that the enhanced security controls were adequate and appropriate to address the identified security concerns. The Tribunal held that these improvements were relevant to determining whether continuation of the preventive suspension remained justified. 

The Tribunal also considered the consequences of the prolonged suspension. The CFS was stated to handle approximately 400 containers per day, and the continuing suspension affected more than 800 direct and outsourced employees.

The Bench held that the hardship suffered by the employees was not merely incidental. It was evidence of the increasingly punitive effect of a suspension that was originally justified as preventive. 

The Tribunal therefore applied the principle of proportionality and noted that any residual concerns could potentially be addressed through less restrictive measures such as preservation and production undertakings, access protocols and enhanced supervision at the cost of the CFS rather than complete suspension of operations. 

The Tribunal also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, 2015 (7) SCC 291, although in a different context involving suspension in service law.

The Tribunal found the principle relevant by analogy: a preventive or interim restriction cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely without the authority progressing toward the substantive proceedings that justify the restriction. The CESTAT used this principle to reinforce its conclusion that the extraordinary nature of Regulation 11(2) requires reasonable temporal limits. 

The Revenue relied on the Madras High Court’s decision in Chandra CFS & Terminal Operators Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, 2015 (326) E.L.T. 122 (Mad.), to support continuation of the suspension.

The Tribunal distinguished that decision on facts. In Chandra CFS, the suspension followed a history of repeated regulatory violations, including earlier show cause proceedings and penalties. The Madras High Court had specifically taken note of the previous antecedents of the CFS.

The Tribunal found the factual circumstances materially different and therefore held that reliance on Chandra CFS was misplaced. 

Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that its interference with the Commissioner’s order was confined to the legal sustainability of continuing the suspension under Regulation 11(2).

The Bench did not finally adjudicate all allegations concerning the alleged past violations. It expressly recognised that the Department remains entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings under Regulation 11(1), provided the statutory procedure is followed. 

Thus, the order does not amount to an immunity from future regulatory or penal proceedings. Rather, it establishes that alleged past violations cannot be used as the sole basis for maintaining an indefinite emergency suspension under Regulation 11(2).

The CESTAT set aside the May 5, 2026 order continuing the suspension and directed the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs to restore the appellant’s licence.

At the same time, the Tribunal permitted the Commissioner to prescribe necessary conditions governing the entry and exit of imported and export goods to protect revenue interests. The appellant was also directed to continue implementing and strictly adhering to the corrective and preventive measures it had undertaken to prevent recurrence of similar incidents. 

The Tribunal made it clear that the Department may still initiate proceedings under Regulation 11(1) if it considers such action warranted, but any such proceedings must follow the proper inquiry procedure prescribed under Regulation 12.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.