2015 (11) TMI 1018 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - Non maintenance of separate accounts - Sub letting of license - Held that - Imported goods involving mis-declaration and under valuation were seized on 4th July, 2012. Shri Ravi Madan, the proprietor of the importing firm in his statement dated 27/8/12, stated that their CHA is M/s. Kapoor & Co.; however, he transacted all the business and made the payments to Shri Prasenjit Banerjee of M/s. First Logistic Co. Shri Prasenjit Banerjee in his statement dated 30/8/12, stated that as per verbal agreement with the appellant CHA firm, he took the clearance job using the license of the appellant on payment of ₹ 300/- to ₹ 500/- per bill of entry. Similar averments were made by other persons whose statements were recorded by the officers. Shri Awadesh Kr. Srivastava, the authorized signatory of the CHA firm in his statement dated 22/8/2012 admitted about letting out his license for monetary consideration.- admittedly, enquiry is pending or contemplated. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. Commissioner has rightly suspended the license and the order passed by him does not suffer with infirmity on account of the same not being an immediate suspension order. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided in favour of Revenue.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of CHA License
2. Delay in Suspension Action
3. Compliance with Board Circular
4. Right to Cross-examination

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Suspension of CHA License:
The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata, suspended the CHA license of the appellant and initiated revocation proceedings. The suspension was based on an offence report indicating that the appellant's license was used for mis-declaration and undervaluation of imported goods. The appellant was found to be letting out the license for monetary benefits, violating multiple regulations under CHALR, 2004. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner acted under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004, which allows for suspension where immediate action is necessary.

2. Delay in Suspension Action:
The appellant argued that there was a lapse of about 100 days between the detection of the offence and the suspension of the license, citing previous judgments where delays rendered suspension orders invalid. However, the Tribunal found that the investigation continued over this period, with the last statement recorded on 22/09/2012 and the offence report prepared on 30/10/2012. The suspension order was issued within 15 days of receiving the offence report, thus complying with the prescribed timeline. The Tribunal concluded that the delay was justified due to the ongoing investigation.

3. Compliance with Board Circular:
The appellant contended that the suspension order violated the Board's Circular No. 9/2010 CUS, which mandates the investigating authority to furnish its report within 30 days and the licensing authority to suspend the license within 15 days of receiving the report. The Tribunal clarified that while the circular prescribes a 15-day limit for suspension action, it does not limit the time for the investigating authority to conclude that an offence has been committed. The Tribunal found that the suspension order adhered to the circular's guidelines, as it was issued within 15 days of the offence report.

4. Right to Cross-examination:
The appellant claimed they were not allowed to cross-examine witnesses. The Tribunal noted that the appellant could not substantiate this claim before the forum and that such a plea had not been raised before the Commissioner. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to cross-examination is not absolute and depends on the facts of each case. In this case, multiple statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, confirmed the appellant's violations, and these confessional statements were considered admissible evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the suspension of the CHA license, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The suspension was deemed appropriate and timely, adhering to relevant regulations and guidelines. The Tribunal also noted that the ongoing enquiry and revocation proceedings were separate and not addressed in this judgment. The appeal was rejected.