2004 (1) TMI 172 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of Custom House Agent's licence under Regulation 21(2) of CHALR, 1984 without urgency shown.
2. Allegation of violation of Regulations 14(a), (b), (d), and (i) of CHALR, 1984.
3. Lack of notice under Regulation 24 of CHALR for revoking the licence.
4. Delay in final decision causing undue hardship to the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The case revolved around the suspension of the Custom House Agent's licence under Regulation 21(2) of CHALR, 1984 without any urgency shown by the lower authority. The appellant argued that the suspension was not justified as there was no urgency to stop the CHA from functioning. The appellant cited legal precedents from the Calcutta High Court and the Madras High Court to support the argument that suspension orders without indicating urgency are a result of non-application of mind. The appellant also highlighted that the investigation into the main offence was completed, and a show cause notice was issued, but no notice under Regulation 24 of CHALR was given for revoking the licence. The appellant pleaded for setting aside the suspension order in the interest of justice due to the undue hardship caused by the delay in a final decision.

2. The allegation against the appellant was related to the violation of Regulations 14(a), (b), (d), and (i) of CHALR, 1984. The Commissioner of Customs received a report indicating the appellant's involvement in a drawback fraud as a CHA for an export firm with a bogus address and unauthorized representation. The Commissioner suspended the CHA's licence on grounds of urgency after receiving the report. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had shown enough urgency in taking action against the CHA and that regular proceedings under Regulation 21(2) were followed promptly. The Tribunal found the appellant's misconduct under CHALR to be grave based on the prima facie evidence, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

3. The appellant raised the issue of lack of notice under Regulation 24 of CHALR for revoking the licence. Despite the completion of the investigation and the issuance of a show cause notice, no formal notice under Regulation 24 was provided by the authority below. This lack of procedural step was highlighted by the appellant as a violation of their rights and a cause of undue hardship due to the prolonged suspension of the licence without a final decision on the matter.

4. The delay in reaching a final decision on the suspension of the licence was a crucial aspect of the case causing undue hardship to the appellant. The appellant emphasized that the initial incident leading to suspension occurred in June, but the suspension order without a hearing was passed in August. The final order confirming the suspension was issued after six months of suspension without any notice under Regulation 24 for revoking the licence. The appellant's plea to set aside the suspension order due to the delay in reaching a final decision was not accepted, considering the gravity of the misconduct under CHALR as observed by the Tribunal.