2012 (9) TMI 247 - AT - Customs

CHA licence - order of prohibition requires Held that - Signing of blank shipping bills for monetary consideration - appellant s licence would require to be revoked - Regulation 21 does not provide for any notice of hearing to be given before issuing an order of prohibition and hence the impugned order cannot be faulted on that count nor the same requires to be stayed - stay application filed by the appellant is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
- Stay of the order of prohibition issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai under CHALR.
- Proximity of action taken by the Commissioner to the event.
- Hearing given before passing the order.
- Involvement of the appellant-CHA in the offence.
- Signing of blank shipping bills by the partner of the appellant-firm.
- Scope of the prohibition order.
- Impact on the livelihood of the employees of the appellant-CHA.

Analysis:

Stay of the Prohibition Order:
The appellant requested a stay of the order of prohibition issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai under CHALR. The grounds included the delay between the related case and the order, lack of a hearing, absence of appellant-CHA's involvement in the offence, signing of blank shipping bills, and the impact on employees' livelihood.

Proximity of Action:
The Department argued that the Commissioner acted promptly upon receiving a report from CBI authorities, justifying the timing of the order despite the earlier case date. The CBI investigation's duration was highlighted, indicating the Commissioner's authority to act under CHALR post-receiving the report.

Hearing Requirement:
It was noted that Regulation 21 of CHALR does not mandate a hearing before issuing a prohibition order. The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin, who issued the CHA license, provided a post-decisional hearing as required under the regulations.

Involvement of Appellant-CHA:
The Department cited a High Court decision emphasizing that signing blank shipping bills for consideration constitutes negligence and corruption, justifying severe penalties. The appellant-CHA's actions were compared to the cited case, opposing the stay request.

Scope of Prohibition Order:
The Tribunal found the Commissioner had a valid basis to issue the prohibition order based on the seriousness of the alleged offence. The nature of the offence and the lack of a hearing requirement under Regulation 21 supported the Commissioner's decision.

Impact on Employees' Livelihood:
Considering the employees' livelihood, the Tribunal referenced a High Court decision stating that no sympathy should be shown towards corruption. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the prohibition order, emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for appropriate action by the licensing authority.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the appellant's stay application, upholding the Commissioner's prohibition order. The decision was based on the seriousness of the allegations, the absence of a hearing requirement under Regulation 21, and the need for appropriate action by the licensing authority.