2002 (11) TMI 381 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Stay of operation of impugned order
- Suspension of CHA license under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984
- Violation of licensing rules and change in composition of CHA without intimation to Customs
- Commissioner's use of extraordinary powers under Regulation 21(2)
- Delay in suspending the license and application of Regulation 23

Stay of Operation of Impugned Order:
The Tribunal noted that since the issue had been previously decided by the Tribunal's orders, the application for stay of the operation of the impugned order was unnecessary, and the appeal itself could be taken up for disposal.

Suspension of CHA License:
The Commissioner suspended the CHA license of M/s. Ericson Enterprises under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984, due to discrepancies in import cases involving rough marbles. The Commissioner found the CHA to have obtained lower invoices, leading to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the importers and individuals involved.

Violation of Licensing Rules and Change in Composition:
The Commissioner observed that Shri Suchde, although representing himself as a partner of the CHA, was neither a partner nor an employee, violating Rules 14E and 14A. The Tribunal found that the change in the composition of the CHA without intimation to Customs warranted severe action against the CHA, despite the lack of explicit mention of these facts in the proceedings.

Commissioner's Use of Extraordinary Powers:
The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's use of extraordinary powers under Regulation 21(2) was not justified due to a significant delay in suspending the license. Citing a previous judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the principle of proximity and allowed the appeal based on the material delay of nearly one year in taking action.

Delay in Suspending the License and Regulation 23:
Despite allowing the appeal due to the delay, the Tribunal acknowledged the Commissioner's right to proceed against the CHA under Regulation 23 of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The appeal was ultimately allowed, highlighting the importance of timely action and adherence to regulatory requirements in such cases.