9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Suspension of Customs House Agent (CHA) license under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 pending enquiry for alleged fraud committed by an employee in 2003. Analysis: The case involved the suspension of a Customs House Agent (CHA) license under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 due to alleged fraud by an employee in 2003. The applicant, represented by counsel, argued that they promptly informed Customs authorities about the fraudulent activities of their employee in 2004, but no action was taken until 2006. The counsel cited precedents to support the claim that the suspension order lacked urgency and bona fides. The Commissioner suspended the license pending enquiry based on the outcome of previous inquiries and invoked Regulation 20(2) to prevent prejudice to public interest and the exchequer. The respondent opposed the stay, intending to present documents showing no intimation from the CHA in 2004. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted a statement from the Vice-President indicating timely intimation to Customs authorities in 2004. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's suspension order unjustified due to the delay of two years from the incident to the order, contrary to the principle of immediacy. Citing relevant case law, the Tribunal concluded that the suspension order was irregular and ordered a stay. The Tribunal emphasized that the stay order did not prevent the Commissioner from proceeding against the CHA in accordance with regulations. The respondent was granted two weeks to produce any relevant documents. The order was dictated and pronounced in open court, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal procedures.
|
