2009 (6) TMI 724 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against suspension of CHA Licence under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 without issuance of show cause notice or grant of personal hearing.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the suspension of the CHA Licence under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 without the issuance of a show cause notice or grant of personal hearing. The appellants contended that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice was issued to them, depriving them of the opportunity to be heard. The learned advocate argued that the post-decisional hearing granted to them was not sufficient without a prior show cause notice. On the other hand, the learned JDR argued that the CHA licence could be suspended in an emergent situation without a personal hearing, citing Tribunal judgments in similar cases. However, the Larger Bench of the Tribunal held that even in cases of immediate suspension, the CHA must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard, as such actions have civil consequences. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of post-decisional hearing and the duty of the Commissioner to provide a fair opportunity for the CHA to present their case.

The Tribunal referred to various judgments, including the case of Freightwings and Travels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, which highlighted the quasi-judicial nature of the Commissioner's function and the necessity of granting a post-decisional hearing. The Tribunal clarified that the provisions of Rule 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 should be interpreted in line with the principles established in previous judgments regarding suspension of CHA licences. The Tribunal differentiated cases where CHAs were penalized under the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing that the current case did not involve such penalties. The Tribunal also noted the Bombay High Court judgment, which did not mandate following Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004 in all suspension cases but did not prohibit a post-decisional hearing.

In its decision, the Tribunal directed the appellants to attend the post-decisional hearing without insisting on a show cause notice, emphasizing the importance of cooperation in the process. The Commissioner was instructed to hear the appellants and make appropriate orders within four weeks of the Tribunal's order. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, highlighting the significance of providing a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case and be heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice.