9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (11) TMI 311 - HC - CustomsForged AEPC Certificate to clear the goods - Held that - In view of the submissions the best course of action would be, to direct the respondents not to take any further action upon the impugned show cause notice awaiting the result by the Appeal pending before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128. The said Commissioner shall, therefore, endeavour to decide the petitioner s Appeal against the adjudicatory order dated 20-12-2006 pending before him at the earliest and in any case within four months from today. The respondents shall, in the meanwhile, not proceed with the impugned show cause notice and make any final order. The continuation and resumption of the said proceedings shall be guided by the final order of the CESTAT. It is open to the petitioner to seek early disposal of the Appeal against the order of the suspension pending before the Tribunal. If such an application is made, the Tribunal shall endeavour to hear the matter at the earliest.
Issues:
1. Show cause notice issued under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent Licencing Regulations, 2004. 2. Suspension of Custom House Agent (CHA) license. 3. Allegations of utilizing a forged AEPC Certificate. 4. Appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act. 5. Issuance of show cause notice proposing cancellation of the petitioner's license. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Customs House Agent, was aggrieved by a show cause notice issued under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent Licencing Regulations, 2004. The notice alleged that the petitioner utilized a forged AEPC Certificate to clear goods for a customer. The Additional Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 5 lacs on the petitioner. The petitioner appealed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, which was pending adjudication before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The respondents suspended the petitioner's CHA license under Section 21 after imposing a penalty. The petitioner appealed to the CESTAT, which set aside the suspension order and directed a reconsideration. However, the Customs Authorities issued a fresh suspension order, which was appealed against. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing the revocation of the petitioner's CHA license. 3. The petitioner argued that the respondents did not consider the circumstances properly and that the delayed action and issuance of the show cause notice indicated a pre-determined decision to revoke the license. The petitioner contended that the renewal of the license for ten years showed no fresh complaints, making the respondents' actions arbitrary and illegal. 4. The Court acknowledged the previous proceedings and the pending Appeal against the adjudicatory order. It directed the respondents not to proceed with the show cause notice pending the Appeal's outcome before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court emphasized the need for a timely decision on the Appeal and instructed the Tribunal to prioritize the hearing if an application for early disposal is made. 5. The Court concluded by directing the respondents to await the Appeal's result before taking any further action on the show cause notice. The continuation of proceedings was to be guided by the final order of the CESTAT. The Registry was instructed to communicate the order to the Collector (Appeals) for appropriate action, and the writ petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
|
