9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (3) TMI 716 - AT - CustomsSuspension of license of CHA - regulations 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 read with regulation 19(i) of the CBLR, 2012 - Held that - the action of suspending CHA license by the Commissioner in Nov 2013 is an order which is incorrect, in as much as when the statements of the officers of importer Binani Cements Ltd and individuals of the appellants firm were recorded in October/November 2012, the authorities did not find it necessary to suspend the license at that time. The call to suspend CHA license by the authorities is belated and unwarranted in the facts of this case. - Decisions in the case of National Shipping Agency 2008 (1) TMI 400 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY and RS Kandalkar 2013 (7) TMI 248 - CESTAT MUMBAI followed - Commissioner of Customs Kandla Customs House, Kandla directed to reinstate the CHA license of the appellant and permit them to function as CHA. - Decided in favor of CHA.
Issues:
Suspension of CHA license based on alleged violation of customs regulations. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appeal challenges the suspension of the CHA license based on alleged misdeclaration of imported goods by M/s Binani Cements Ltd. The DRI issued a Show Cause Notice to both Binani Cements Ltd and the CHA, directing them to justify their actions. The Commissioner of Customs suspended the CHA license under CHALR, 2004, based on DRI's recommendations. 2. The appellant's counsel argued that the CHA had no role in the alleged misdeclaration as they submitted all documents provided by Binani Cements Ltd to the customs authorities during import. The counsel cited case laws emphasizing that suspension powers should be used only in emergent cases, which the delayed suspension in this case did not meet the criteria. 3. The Department Representative contended that the CHA should have noticed the mismatch in the documents filed for import, indicating awareness of undervaluation. The Department argued that the CHA's failure to bring this to the customs authority's attention warranted the license suspension. 4. The Tribunal reviewed the case records and found that the statements of both Binani Cements Ltd and the CHA were not incriminating. The Tribunal noted a significant delay between the import and the suspension order, questioning the necessity and urgency of the suspension. 5. The Tribunal referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a similar case, emphasizing that suspension powers should be used only in emergencies. The Tribunal also cited a co-ordinate Bench decision setting aside a suspension order in a comparable situation, highlighting the lack of proximity between the alleged violation and the suspension order. 6. Based on the legal principles established in the referenced judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the suspension of the CHA license was unwarranted and ordered the reinstatement of the license. The Tribunal clarified that this decision did not prevent customs authorities from conducting further inquiries and taking appropriate actions in accordance with the law. 7. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and directed the Commissioner of Customs to reinstate the CHA license, allowing the appellant to resume their CHA functions. The Tribunal emphasized that the customs authorities could proceed with any necessary inquiry and subsequent actions as per the regulations. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the legal arguments, case precedents, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to set aside the suspension of the CHA license.
|
