2004 (7) TMI 187 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal against suspension of CHA license.
2. Validity of suspension of CHA license under Regulation 21(2) based on violation of Regulation No. 14.
3. Compliance with authorization requirements under Regulation 14(a) and (b).
4. Allegations of unauthorized transactions through an unapproved employee.
5. Lack of specific findings on non-compliance with other provisions of Regulation 14.
6. Questioning the urgency of suspension order and absence of inquiry under Regulation 23.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered two appeals and miscellaneous applications, including a delay condonation request for Appeal No. C/234/2004 against the Commissioner's order suspending the CHA license, which was allowed after hearing both sides.

2. The Commissioner suspended the CHA license under Regulation 21(2) for violating Regulation No. 14 based on a case where the importer filed a Bill of Entry, canceled it, and filed a fresh one due to a change in customs duty rate. The Tribunal found the charges unsustainable as the Bills of Entry were acted upon by the proper officer, and no unauthorized transactions were proven.

3. The Tribunal examined the allegations under Regulation 14(a) and (b) regarding unauthorized transactions and unapproved employees. It concluded that the charges were not substantiated, as the Bills of Entry were filed by an authorized representative, not the unapproved employee mentioned.

4. Specific findings of non-compliance with other Regulation 14 provisions were not found in the impugned orders, leading the Tribunal to question the basis of such allegations without concrete evidence.

5. The Tribunal addressed the urgency of the suspension order, noting that no inquiry had been initiated under Regulation 23, and no show cause notice had been issued, suggesting a lack of immediate action against the CHA.

6. Based on the findings, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals, but clarified that the decision would not obstruct any ongoing inquiry proceedings under Regulation 23, if initiated against the appellants.