2006 (3) TMI 589 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to suspension of CHA license pending investigation based on lack of clarity in charges and non-application of mind by the Commissioner.

Analysis:
The appellant, a CHA agent, challenged the suspension of his license pending investigation by the Commissioner. The Commissioner had taken a prima facie view that the appellant had facilitated illicit transactions without advising compliance with Customs Act provisions. The challenge was based on the lack of specificity in the suspension order regarding the importers involved and the basis for concluding the appellant's involvement. The appellant argued that the suspension order lacked details of preliminary inquiries, violating principles of natural justice. Citing various judgments, the appellant contended that the suspension lacked clarity in charges and immediate action as required by CHALR 2004.

The Tribunal considered the arguments and noted that the suspension order did not explicitly state the charges against the appellant. Citing precedents, including the Madras High Court's decision in East West Freight Carriers Pvt Ltd., the Tribunal held that a suspension order lacking clarity and the application of mind by the Commissioner should be set aside. The Tribunal also referenced judgments such as GCL Shipping Agents Pvt Ltd., emphasizing the need for immediate suspension actions. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the suspension order, directing the Commissioner to restore the appellant's license. The Commissioner was granted the liberty to take appropriate action following the Principles of Natural Justice and CHALR 2004 without suspending the appellant.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the lack of clarity and non-application of mind in the suspension order. Relying on legal precedents, the Tribunal set aside the suspension and instructed the Commissioner to restore the appellant's license while allowing further proceedings in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. The appeal was allowed, and the operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court.