9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (10) TMI 439 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA license - Non following of prescribed norms and contravention of the provision of Regulation 13 of the CHALR - Held that - Charges against the CHA are not very serious so as to call for his suspension. It is a fact on record that CHA was not involved in presenting the papers before the Customs. The work is being done through his G card holder. Secondly, the imports took place in January whereas the impugned order stands passed in October, 2012 and still continuing even after lapse of more than one year. Thirdly, we are informed that show cause notice for cancellation of licence stands issued and the proceedings would be finalised soon. Taking note of all the facts of the above, we deem it fit to set aside the suspension of the CHA licence.
Issues:
Suspension of CHA license under CHALR for undervaluation of goods, time limit for suspension proceedings, relevance of precedents in similar cases, involvement of CHA's employee, seriousness of charges against CHA, delay in suspension order. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the suspension of the CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs due to undervaluation of goods by importers handled by the CHA's employee. The Commissioner found the CHA's agent to have contravened Regulation 13 of the CHALR, leading to the suspension of the CHA license. The imports were made in January, and the goods were seized in January 2012, with the CHA license being temporarily suspended in August 2012 and the final order passed in October 2012, after more than six months. The appellant argued that the suspension exceeded the time limit prescribed by the Board, citing Circular No. 502/5/2008-Cus.VI, which sets a nine-month limit for completion of suspension proceedings. The appellant relied on various Tribunal decisions where suspensions were set aside due to delays beyond the prescribed time limit. In analyzing similar cases, the Tribunal considered the gravity of the acts committed by the CHA, the extent of involvement, and the time lapsed from the event to the suspension review. Precedents like Aman Cargo Pvt. Ltd. and Kashyap Shipping Pvt. Ltd. were cited to emphasize that suspensions exceeding a specified period without significant grounds should be revoked. The Tribunal noted that the CHA was not directly involved in presenting papers to Customs, the charges were not severe, and the suspension continued for over a year without finalization of proceedings for license cancellation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the suspension of the CHA license, considering the circumstances and the lack of serious charges against the CHA. In conclusion, the Tribunal found the charges against the CHA not serious enough to warrant suspension, especially considering the lack of direct involvement in presenting documents to Customs. The delay in finalizing the proceedings for license cancellation, along with the absence of severe charges, led the Tribunal to revoke the suspension of the CHA license. The decision was made based on the specific facts of the case, the time elapsed, and the lack of substantial grounds for the suspension.
|
