2011 (6) TMI 376 - AT - Customs

Suspension of operation of the appellants CHA licence - Stay application - notice of personal hearing on 15.11.2010 was communicated to the CHA vide letter dt. 8.11.2010 and it is the CHA who has requested that the hearing may be kept in abeyance on the ground that the suspension order has been challenged before the Tribunal in the above appeal - Held that - Non-issue of notice to the CHA as contemplated under Regulation 20 (3) cannot be held against the Revenue and has directed issue of notice to the CHA even though the 15 days period prescribed in the above Regulation has already expired - Therefore, direct the CHA to appear for post-decisional hearing on receipt of notice of hearing - The appeal is disposed of by directing post-decisional hearing to be granted as expeditiously as possible - The stay application is also disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to suspension of CHA license under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 for involvement in smuggling of red sander wood logs.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the suspension of the CHA license under Regulation 20 (2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, due to involvement in smuggling activities. The primary grounds of challenge are the timing of the suspension order and the lack of a post-decisional hearing within the stipulated period. The Tribunal examined the timeline of events leading to the suspension order. The DRI letter recommending action against the CHA was received on 27.7.2010, and the suspension order was issued on 2.9.2010, within 15 days of communication from Chennai Customs. The Tribunal found no merit in the argument that the suspension order was issued beyond the prescribed time limit, as Regulation 20 (2) was not violated.

Regarding the issue of post-decisional hearing, the Tribunal noted that a notice of personal hearing was communicated to the CHA on 15.11.2010. However, the CHA requested to defer the hearing due to the pending appeal challenging the suspension order. Citing a judgment from the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing a post-decisional hearing despite the expiration of the prescribed 15-day period under Regulation 20 (3). Following precedent, the Tribunal directed the CHA to appear for a post-decisional hearing upon receipt of the notice, ensuring procedural fairness. The appeal was disposed of with the directive for an expeditious post-decisional hearing, and the stay application was also addressed accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the suspension order's timing compliance with Regulation 20 (2) and emphasized the necessity of providing a post-decisional hearing to maintain procedural fairness, as mandated by the relevant regulations and legal precedents.