2011 (3) TMI 824 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA licence - Circular 9/2010 dated 8-4-2010 - The reason for suspension of the license as seen from the order is that M/s. Gorala Arya Impex Pvt. Ltd. Delhi attempted to export non-basmati rice, (a prohibited item for export) as basmati rice (not prohibited for export from Mundra Port). Tine Appellant had acted as CHA for the impugned export consignments and filed the relevant Shipping Bills - There is also a charge that during the investigations the CHA did not disclose information about other Shipping Bills which were filed, but against which goods had been not been exported - it is also clarified that the Commissioner of Customs at a customs station who had authorised a CHA to operate on C form intimation, should inform the details of violations to the Commissioner of Customs at the customs station from where the CHA licence was issued for such CHA, so that necessary action for suspension or revocation of CHA licence, could be initiated by him - Held that there has been considerable delay in issue of the suspension order when adjudged against the time frames prescribed by the Board - stay on suspension order has the same effect as revocation of suspension - Appeal is disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against suspension of Customs House Agent (CHA) license.
2. Early hearing of the Appeal and raising additional grounds based on Circular 9/2010.
3. Allegations of involvement in exporting prohibited goods by misdeclaration.
4. Suspension process and compliance with guidelines.
5. Delay in issuing suspension order and comparison with judicial precedents.

Issue 1: Appeal against suspension of CHA license
The Appellant, a CHA, appealed against the suspension of their license due to their involvement in exporting non-basmati rice misdeclared as basmati rice, a prohibited item. The suspension was based on allegations of fraudulent activities in filing shipping bills for the export consignments.

Issue 2: Early hearing and additional grounds
The Appellant sought early hearing of the Appeal and requested to raise additional grounds based on Circular 9/2010. The Tribunal admitted both MA 24/2011 for early hearing and MA 50/2011 for raising additional grounds, considering the impact of the suspension on the Appellant's profession.

Issue 3: Allegations of misdeclaration and involvement in prohibited goods
The Appellant was accused of misdeclaring non-basmati rice as basmati rice for export, leading to the suspension of their CHA license. The investigation report highlighted the Appellant's alleged awareness of the fraudulent nature of export documents and failure to disclose crucial information to the customs department.

Issue 4: Suspension process and compliance with guidelines
The suspension of a CHA license was deemed a severe measure impacting the business and employees significantly. The Appellant argued non-compliance with guidelines, citing delays in the suspension process and deviation from the prescribed time frames for suspension proceedings outlined in Circular 9/2010.

Issue 5: Delay in issuing suspension order and comparison with judicial precedents
The Tribunal acknowledged the delay in issuing the suspension order, contrary to the time frames set by the Board. Citing a previous judicial decision, the Tribunal decided to revoke the suspension order, considering the impact of the delay on the Appellant's business. However, the Tribunal clarified that the decision did not imply a judgment on the Appellant's culpability, leaving room for further action by the customs department as per regulations.

In conclusion, the Tribunal revoked the suspension order due to the delay in the process but refrained from making a judgment on the Appellant's involvement in the alleged fraudulent activities. The case highlighted the importance of following prescribed guidelines in suspension proceedings and the impact of such actions on the business of CHAs.