2018 (8) TMI 499 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - Rule 19 of Customs Broker License Regulation 2013 - Held that - The appellant and Sh. Bajrang Lal Sharma are two separate legal entities. Since no proceedings were initiated against the appellant and there is no penalty or any other action proposed against the appellant and the adjudication process has already been completed without any penalty or any other action, there is no justification of continuation of the suspension of the licence of the appellant - the prayer of the appellant for revoking the suspension order dt. 11.05.2017 is granted and the suspension order is revoked. Prohibition Order - case of appellant is that order of prohibition dated 18.04.2017 had been passed without giving them any opportunity of being heard personally and an ex-parte order has been passed resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice - Held that - Since the appellant was not given any opportunity of being heard personally, it would be in the interest of justice if the matter relating to prohibition under regulation 23 is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to defend themselves - matter on remand. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to suspension of CHA License
2. Challenge to prohibition from conducting business as a Customs Broker

Issue 1: Challenge to suspension of CHA License
In Appeal No. C/11588/2017, the appellant contested the suspension of their CHA License by the Principal Commissioner, Kandla. The appellant argued that they were not made a noticee in the show cause notice related to the investigation, which had already been adjudicated without any penalty or action against them. The appellant relied on a previous Tribunal judgment and requested the suspension order to be set aside. The Revenue submitted details of the investigation and penalties imposed on an employee of the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the appellant was not a noticee in the show cause notice, and since no proceedings or penalties were initiated against the appellant, the suspension of their license was unjustified. Consequently, the Tribunal granted the appellant's plea to revoke the suspension order.

Issue 2: Challenge to prohibition from conducting business as a Customs Broker
In Appeal No. C/11516/2017, the appellant challenged the order of prohibition issued by the Principal Commissioner, Mundra, which prevented them from operating as a Customs Broker in Mundra. The appellant argued that the order was passed ex-parte without granting them a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the order of prohibition under Regulation 23 was prejudicial to the appellant and cited a judgment of the Gujarat High Court emphasizing the necessity of providing a hearing before such decisions. As the appellant was not given an opportunity to be heard, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh order after affording the appellant a chance to defend themselves adequately. The adjudicating authority was instructed to consider the developments in the adjudication process at Custom House, Mundra while re-evaluating the prohibition under Regulation 23 of CBLR, 2013.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed Appeal No. C/11588/2017 and revoked the suspension order, while Appeal No. C/11516/2017 was allowed by way of remand for a fresh order considering the appellant's right to a fair hearing.