2013 (1) TMI 126 - AT - Customs

Suspension of operation of the CHA license - Stay of operation of the order - Customs House Agent Principal of natural justice - The suspension of the CHA licence is in force from 02/09/2011 - The period of 90 days is the outer limit for taking action under Regulation 22 - An inquiry is still being contemplated against the CHA for over 10 months Held that - The suspension order had stated that an inquiry was contemplated against the CHA. Today the report from the side of the respondent indicates that action under Regulation 22 is yet to be taken. By no stretch of imagination can any prudent man say that such contemplation of action against the CHA for an indefinite period is in keeping with the principles of natural justice or with the spirit of the legal provisions. We are told that about 50 employees of the CHA are without livelihood on account of the suspension of CHA licence without any follow-up action on the part of the Commissioner of Customs. Accordingly, it is ordered that, if no action is initiated by the respondent in the above matter before 17/08/2012, the suspension order will stand set aside w.e.f. 18.08.2012.

Summary

Issues:
- Stay of operation of the impugned order regarding suspension of CHA license
- Delay in initiating action under Regulation 22 against the CHA
- Compliance with principles of natural justice and legal provisions

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), sought a stay of the impugned order suspending their CHA license. The license was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam based on reports from the DRI, Kolkata regarding the appellant's involvement in exporting certain goods. The suspension was followed by an addendum with further grounds for suspension. A post-decisional hearing was held, and the suspension was continued until further orders. The appellant filed a stay application seeking relief from the suspension order.

2. The matter faced delays due to the appellant and respondent not providing relevant information. The appellant mentioned filing a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court against a prohibitory order by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. The appellant produced a certified copy of the High Court's order, and the respondent provided a report on the status of proceedings under Regulation 22. These delays led to the stay application remaining pending.

3. The High Court's order in a related case stated that the Writ Petition was dismissed as infructuous without adjudicating the merits. The Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam received offense reports from the DRI, Kolkata, and Customs (Preventive), West Bengal. The High Court's dismissal allowed the proceedings to continue. The Commissioner had time to take action under Regulation 22, and the Additional Commissioner hoped for timely action.

4. The Tribunal expressed dissatisfaction with the delay in taking action under Regulation 22 against the CHA. The suspension had been in force for over 10 months, with no inquiry initiated. The Tribunal deemed the delay contrary to natural justice and legal provisions, affecting the CHA's employees. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal intervened, setting a deadline for action under Regulation 22.

5. The Tribunal ordered that if no action was initiated by the respondent before a specified date, the suspension order would be set aside. The appeal and stay application were disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the importance of timely action and adherence to principles of natural justice.