2003 (8) TMI 331 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against suspension of CHA Licence under Rule 21(2) of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Suspension of CHA Licence
The appeal was filed against the suspension of the CHA Licence under Rule 21(2) of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The appellants contended that there was no evidence to justify the suspension, as they had not acted without permission while submitting bills of entry for importers M/s. Ultra Systems and M/s. Trust Marketing. The appellants argued that the Form H card holder, Shri T.S. Bineesh Kumar, was authorized by Customs House authorities to handle clearance of goods. The Commissioner of Customs, on the other hand, justified the suspension citing misdeclaration of goods by the appellants without proper authority. The Tribunal found that while some goods were not correctly declared, there was no evidence of misdeclaration by the appellants themselves. Importers did not disown the authority of the appellants, and no show cause notice was issued to them for misdeclaration. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner should have waited for the completion of the enquiry before exercising power under Regulation 21(2) of CHA Regulations.

Issue 2: Allegation of Allowing Unauthorized Persons
The Commissioner alleged that the appellants allowed unauthorized persons to handle Customs documents, but the Tribunal found no corroborating evidence for this claim. The documents were submitted by the authorized Form H card holder on behalf of the appellants, issued by Customs authorities. Due to the lack of evidence supporting the allegation, the Tribunal could not sustain the impugned order passed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal set aside the order, allowing the Commissioner to take appropriate action after completing the enquiry and providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to be heard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order suspending the CHA Licence, emphasizing the need for proper evidence and completion of the enquiry before exercising regulatory powers. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and providing a fair opportunity for all parties involved in such cases.