2007 (4) TMI 161 - HC - Customs

Suspension of Custom House Agent (CHA) Licence No enquiry report has been submitted to CHA and even till today the enquiry has not been completed HC uphold the revocation of suspension order Since no substantial question of law involved in appeal, so dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of suspension order under CHALR, 2004 by Commissioner of Customs.
2. Jurisdiction of CESTAT in setting aside suspension order and directing completion of enquiry proceedings.
3. Deprivation of livelihood of Customs House Agent (CHA) during suspension period.
4. Failure to provide enquiry report to CHA within a reasonable time frame.

Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court raised the issue of the validity of the suspension order passed by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004. The respondent, a Customs House Agent (CHA), had his license suspended by the Commissioner. The CESTAT was approached by the respondent challenging this suspension.

2. The CESTAT, in its order, noted that the suspension had not been revoked, and no enquiry report had been provided to the CHA to enable him to defend himself. Despite the investigation being completed, the CHA was deprived of his livelihood for over a year. The CESTAT decided to revoke the suspension order and directed the department to complete the regular enquiry proceedings within one month from the date of the order.

3. The High Court, after hearing both parties, observed that the enquiry had still not been completed even after a significant period had passed. The Court found that the CHA had been deprived of his livelihood without a proper enquiry report being furnished. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that there was no substantial question of law involved in the matter.

4. The judgment highlighted the failure to provide the enquiry report to the CHA within a reasonable timeframe, leading to a prolonged deprivation of livelihood. The Court emphasized the importance of completing enquiry proceedings promptly to ensure that individuals affected by suspension orders are not unduly prejudiced. The decision underscored the need for procedural fairness and timely resolution of such matters in accordance with the law.