9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against the suspension of CHA licence u/s Regulation 20(2) of CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004.
Summary: The case involved an appeal against the suspension of a Customs House Agent (CHA) licence by the Commissioner due to misuse of Duty Free Replenishment Certificate Scheme. The CHA company, represented by its director and manager, was found to have used tampered licences for importing goods duty-free, leading to a suspension of the licence based on activities prejudicial to revenue. The appellant argued that the suspension order was issued after a significant time lag from the initial investigation, citing legal precedents where delays in suspension orders were set aside by the courts. The Departmental Representative contended that there was no undue delay in issuing the suspension order, emphasizing that immediate action does not necessarily mean instant suspension after the alleged violation. Upon considering the submissions, the Tribunal noted that the alleged involvement of the CHA was known to the department several months before the suspension order was issued. It was observed that the investigating agency did not find the evidence strong enough to warrant immediate suspension, indicating a lack of emergency justifying instant action. The Tribunal, referencing a Bombay High Court decision, set aside the suspension order, highlighting the absence of a charge sheet even after six months of suspension. The Commissioner was granted the liberty to conduct an enquiry, provide a hearing to the appellants, and take appropriate action based on the enquiry findings. This judgment underscores the importance of following due process and ensuring sufficient grounds for immediate suspension of licences, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity for the accused to respond to allegations before punitive actions are taken.
|
