2011 (9) TMI 214 - AT - Customs

Suspending CHA licence - licences are suspended on the ground that one employee had been detained under COFEPOSA and there was some violations by some employees in Mumbai - Appellant contended that - no investigation report at all - that the sais employee was employee of another company before joining them and since he was a G-Card holder already they did not take up any verification - lending the C.H.A. licence to others for monthly payments which is a serious offense - Held that letter of the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai was not even shown to the Appellant during personal hearing nor a copy was given to them - set aside the impugned order - Commissioner to give a fresh post-decision hearing after handing over a copy of the letter from Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - pass a fresh order after considering all the submissions that will be made by the Appellant within 30 (thirty) days from the date of this order - Appeal gets disposed off

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of operation of the order suspending CHA license.
2. Compliance with principles of natural justice in post-decision hearing.

Analysis:
1. The appellant sought a stay on the suspension of the CHA license issued by the Commissioner, citing lack of investigation report as required by law. The Commissioner's reliance on a letter from the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, without providing a copy to the appellant for rebuttal, was highlighted. It was argued that the employee in question had a G-Card and no verification was conducted. The Additional Commissioner contended that the suspension was lawful, emphasizing the serious offense of lending the CHA license for monthly payments.

2. The Tribunal considered both sides' submissions and emphasized the importance of post-decision hearings to allow the appellant to respond to the basis of suspension. It was noted that the letter from the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai was not shared during the personal hearing, raising concerns about the observance of natural justice. The appellant mentioned that the employee's detention under COFEPOSA had been quashed by the High Court, but details were lacking in the order. As a result, the Tribunal found a lack of full observance of natural justice and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner was directed to conduct a fresh post-decision hearing, provide a copy of the letter forming the basis of the suspension order, and issue a new order within 30 days. The suspension would continue until the new order or one month from the Tribunal's decision, whichever is earlier. The appellant assured cooperation, leading to the disposal of the appeal and related applications.