2009 (9) TMI 449 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA Licence- Suspension of CHA licence. Firm already closed for about 2 years. Submission that appeal relating to year 2002-2003 coming up for final hearing, therefore it will take year for appeal to come up in normal course and firm will remain closed for all that period if early hearing not granted. Tribunal not rendering final decision on quantum of punishment, only application for early hearing being considered. If quantum of punishment, only application for early hearing being considered. If quantum of punishment happens to be disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed, delay in hearing may not be justifiable. Early hearing allowed without going into merits.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license due to unauthorized employee activities; Request for early hearing due to business closure.

Analysis:
The appellant's CHA license was revoked following an enquiry that revealed unauthorized employees handling crucial tasks, causing revenue loss. The appellant's advocate argued that the firm had not functioned as a CHA since the license suspension, emphasizing the disproportionate penalty of revocation due to an employee's actions. The advocate requested an early hearing to prevent prolonged business closure.

The Departmental Representative opposed the early hearing, citing the Commissioner's detailed enquiry findings and the necessity for authorized employees to handle CHA tasks. Referring to a Bombay High Court decision, the Representative argued against Tribunal interference unless the authority's decision was unreasonable or the punishment excessive. The Representative also highlighted a previous Tribunal decision denying early hearing in a suspension case.

The Tribunal considered both arguments, acknowledging the delay in regular appeal hearings and the potential for prolonged business closure. Distinguishing the cited High Court decision, the Tribunal clarified that the current ruling only pertained to the early hearing request, not the final punishment decision. The Tribunal noted that the previous Tribunal decision on early hearing denial was not applicable due to incomplete proceedings in that case. Despite refraining from a final decision on the revocation's justification, the Tribunal granted the early hearing request due to the significant business closure period.

Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the early hearing application, scheduling the matter for final hearing on a specific date to address the pending appeal and the extended business closure concerns.