Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2000 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2000 (6) TMI 360 - AT - Customs

Issues:
Appeal against suspension of C.H.A. license without hearing under Regulation 21 of Custom House Licencing Regulation 1984.

Detailed Analysis:
1. Background: The appeal was filed against the suspension of a Custom House Agent (C.H.A.) license by the Commissioner of Customs (G) without a hearing, purportedly under Regulation 21 of the Custom House Licencing Regulations 1984.

2. Appellant's Profile: The appellants are a firm of Custom House Agents holding a regular license and have been in business since 1989, attending to the clearance of import and export consignments. The firm has a significant volume of duty paid on import consignments over the years and employs 22 individuals.

3. Investigations and Show Cause Notices: The appellant was involved in the clearance of export consignments for various entities, leading to investigations by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for alleged violations of Customs Act and Rules. Show cause notices were issued in 1998 and 1999, which were pending adjudication at the time of license suspension.

4. Legal Representation: The appellant was represented by Shri J.C. Patel, who argued that the invocation of powers under Regulation 21(2) for immediate action necessitates a specific meaning of "immediate" and that no due enquiry was conducted before the license suspension, rendering the order incorrect.

5. Revenue's Position: Shri Deepak Kumar, representing the Revenue, supported the reasoning in the impugned order justifying the license suspension.

6. Judgment: The Tribunal, comprising S/Shri G.N. Srinivasan and S.S. Sekhon, analyzed the arguments and held that the appellant had a valid case. They emphasized that the term "immediate" in Regulation 21(2) should be interpreted appropriately, especially considering the significant role played by C.H.A.s in Customs operations. The lack of an enquiry before the suspension rendered the exercise of power under Regulation 21(2) improper, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

7. Conclusion: The Tribunal found the suspension order to be legally flawed due to the absence of an immediate enquiry as required by the regulations. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The application for stay was also disposed of in the judgment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates