9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 1131 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA licence - certain violations noticed on the part of the CHA in connection with the filing of 10 shipping bills, all of which were filed in December, 2008, some on behalf of one exporter and the rest on behalf of another exporter - Held that - we reject the proposition that the action taken by the Commissioner under Regulation 20(2) is an administrative action. A Larger Bench of this Tribunal had held long ago that the suspension of CHA licence by a Commissioner of Customs (licensing authority), pending investigations against the CHA, was an action with civil consequences for the CHA and hence of a quasi-judicial nature. The larger bench also held that a CHA, whose licence was suspended with immediate effect without hearing, was to be given post-decisional hearing in accordance with the rule of natural justice. It is this view which was accepted by the legislative authority and incorporated in Regulation 20 through the amendment under reference. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the suspension order of the Commissioner is a quasi-judicial product rather than administrative - application allowed - decided in favor of applicant.
Issues:
1. Stay application filed by Custom House Agent against suspension of CHA license. 2. Interpretation of Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004. 3. Consideration of procedural requirements and time limits for suspension of CHA license. 4. Quasi-judicial nature of suspension order by Commissioner. 5. Application of Regulation 20(2) in light of the amendment and investigating authority's report. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a Custom House Agent (CHA), filed a stay application against the suspension of their CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs. The suspension was based on violations found in the filing of shipping bills, leading to the immediate suspension of the license under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004. 2. Both parties acknowledged a confirmatory order of suspension passed by the Commissioner after a post-decisional hearing. The appellant contested the preliminary objection raised by the respondent, arguing that the two orders were independent, with the second order continuing the first. The Tribunal decided to dispose of the application without regard to the latest order, stating that the appeal against the first order would remain pending. 3. The appellant contended that the Commissioner's order should be set aside for not following the procedure under Regulation 20 of the CHALR, 2004. They argued that the suspension order was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, citing the Board's Circular and precedents from the Bombay High Court. The respondent argued for a liberal construction of the time-limit under Regulation 20(2) and suggested applying the regulation as it stood before the amendment. 4. The Tribunal rejected the notion that the Commissioner's action was administrative, affirming it as quasi-judicial. They emphasized the need for a post-decisional hearing for a suspended CHA, aligning with the rule of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted that the judgments cited were pre-amendment and deemed the respondent's proposition regarding the pre-amendment regulation inapplicable. 5. Considering the investigating authority's report and the timeline of events, the Tribunal found the Commissioner's suspension order to be in violation of the prescribed time limit. They stayed the operation of the impugned order based on this ground, allowing the application. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision-making process.
|
