2011 (7) TMI 935 - AT - Customs

On the ground that no opportunity for personal hearing was granted before issue of the impugned order and that no post-decisional hearing was given - Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Held that Commissioner has the power under Regulation 21 to issue an order prohibiting a CHA from working in one or more sections of the Customs House. More sections can include all sections - Appeal is rejected

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order prohibiting the Customs House Agent from carrying out business in Chennai Customs Jurisdiction without a personal hearing and post-decisional hearing.

Analysis:
The appeal challenges the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which prohibited the Customs House Agent (CHA) from conducting business in Chennai Customs Jurisdiction without granting a personal hearing or a post-decisional hearing. The primary contention revolves around Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, under which the impugned order was issued. This regulation empowers the Commissioner to prohibit a CHA from working in specific sections of the Customs Station if certain obligations are not fulfilled. The tribunal noted that Regulation 21 does not mandate a personal hearing, unlike other regulations, and stands as an independent provision not subject to additional requirements. It was emphasized that the Commissioner has the authority to issue a prohibition order covering all sections of the Customs House, including the entire establishment. The tribunal further highlighted that Regulation 21 does not include a post-decisional hearing requirement, distinguishing it from Regulation 20(3) of the CHALR, 2004. Reference was made to a precedent where a post-decisional hearing was directed, but the tribunal clarified that such a requirement was not present in Regulation 21, indicating a deliberate differentiation between the two regulations.

The tribunal concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the impugned order, thereby upholding it and dismissing the appeal. Additionally, it was noted that the Commissioner of Trichy had issued a show-cause notice proposing the revocation of the CHA's license, providing an opportunity for the CHA to respond and participate in the proceedings. The decision was pronounced in court on 7-7-2011, emphasizing the importance of compliance with the regulatory framework governing Customs House Agents' operations.