2011 (2) TMI 1082 - AT - Customs

CHA licence suspended - exporter illegally exported non-basmati rice by misdeclaring it as basmati rice , as export of non-basmati rice being prohibited upon receipt of such information, the Commissioner suspended the operation of the CHA licence contemplating enquiry against the appellant - Held that - It appears from the records that memo of articles of charges against the appellant is under preparation and that an inquiry officer and a presenting officer are being nominated. Under instructions from the Commissioner, the JDR submits that the articles of charges will be issued to the appellant within a week s time and that, if the appellant co-operates with the Commissioner, the proceedings against him would be completed within a period of three months. These submissions have been made under instructions from the respondent-Commissioner and hence will be taken in their face value. Now that the proceedings against the CHA under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004 stand initiated, we are of the view that such proceedings should continue expeditiously to its logical conclusion and that a final decision should be taken by the Commissioner within a reasonable period of time

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of Customs House Agent (CHA) license by Commissioner of Customs (General) pending inquiry.
2. Urgency of immediate action against the CHA.
3. Compliance with Regulations 12 and 13 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004.
4. Timely completion of inquiry process under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004.

Issue 1: Suspension of CHA license pending inquiry
The appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner of Customs suspending the operation of the CHA license with immediate effect due to alleged contravention of Regulations 12 and 13 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004 in connection with the export of rice. The Commissioner justified the suspension to prevent further misuse of the license, considering it prejudicial to Revenue interests.

Issue 2: Urgency of immediate action
The appellant argued that as no chargesheet had been issued under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004, there was no urgency for immediate action against them. Reference was made to a High Court judgment where the suspension of a CHA license was revoked due to delays in completing the inquiry process.

Issue 3: Compliance with Regulations 12 and 13
The JDR reported that a chargesheet against the appellant was being prepared, with an inquiry officer to be appointed soon. The Commissioner was directed to issue the memo of charges within seven days, appoint an inquiry officer, complete the inquiry within two months, and pass a final order within an additional month. The appellant was required to cooperate, with the understanding that failure to comply could result in setting aside the impugned order.

Issue 4: Timely completion of inquiry process
The Tribunal emphasized the need for expeditious proceedings under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004, directing the Commissioner to adhere to the specified timelines for issuing charges, conducting the inquiry, and issuing a final order. Cooperation from the appellant was deemed crucial, with a warning that failure to conclude the proceedings promptly could lead to the impugned order being set aside.

In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with directions for the Commissioner to conduct the inquiry promptly and issue a final order within the stipulated time frame, emphasizing the importance of cooperation from both parties.