2011 (4) TMI 1139 - AT - Customs

Stay application - CHA licence - Commissioner of Customs Chennai has prohibited the appellants from carrying out their business in Chennai Customs jurisdiction with immediate effect and until further orders Held that - Commissioner has the power under Regulation 21 to issue an order of prohibition prohibiting a CHA from working in one or more sections of the custom house order of prohibition does not warrant to be stayed during pendency of the appeal apart from the fact that prima facie stay application is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Stay application against an order prohibiting a Customs House Agent (CHA) from working in Chennai Customs jurisdiction.
- Grounds for the stay application: alleged violations, financial hardship, lack of personal hearing, and legality of the order.
- Interpretation of Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 2004 regarding the Commissioner's power to issue prohibition orders.
- Consideration of the Tribunal's decision in a similar case and the principles of natural justice.
- Decision on the stay application and the reasoning behind it.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a CHA licensed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, was prohibited from conducting business in Chennai Customs jurisdiction by an order from the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The appellant filed a stay application against this order, citing no violations, financial hardship, lack of personal hearing, and questioning the legality of the order.

2. The grounds for the stay application included arguments that the appellant acted in good faith, the order caused financial hardship, and that the order was not issued in compliance with the law, specifically Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 2004. The appellant contended that the Commissioner had overstepped by prohibiting them from working in all sections of the custom house.

3. Regulation 21 of the CHALR, 2004 allows the Commissioner to prohibit a CHA from working in one or more sections of the Customs Station if obligations are not fulfilled. The Tribunal found that there was no requirement for a personal hearing under Regulation 21 and that the order could be issued without a specific time period or receipt of any report, unlike other regulations.

4. The Commissioner's power to issue a prohibition order was upheld by the Tribunal, emphasizing that the Commissioner could prohibit a CHA from working in the entire custom house if necessary. The Tribunal noted serious allegations against the appellant, including facilitating clearance through unauthorized persons and not exercising due diligence.

5. Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of following principles of natural justice and not interfering with disciplinary decisions unless shockingly disproportionate or mala fide. The Tribunal decided not to stay the operation of the suspension, as it would have granted the relief sought in the appeal itself.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the stay application, ruling that the impugned order of prohibition did not warrant a stay during the appeal process. The decision was based on the lack of apparent merit in the challenge to the order and the principles outlined in previous judgments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's detailed analysis of the grounds for the stay application, interpretation of relevant regulations, consideration of legal principles, and application of previous case law led to the dismissal of the stay application against the order prohibiting the CHA from working in Chennai Customs jurisdiction.