2012 (6) TMI 129 - AT - Customs

Suspension of the CHA licence - appeal against order of suspension - Revenue praying for no interference to the suspension, placing gravity of depositions recorded from various persons and more incriminating evidence gathered in the course of investigation followed by search proceedings - Held that - We do appreciate that appellant deserves to be provided opportunity of hearing to defend against charges. Granting 4 weeks time for defence to be lead by the appellant appropriate adjudication shall be done by learned Commissioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against suspension of CHA license.
2. Compliance with CHA Licensing Regulations.
3. Evidence and charges against the appellant.
4. Fair opportunity of defense and adjudication process.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal heard an appeal challenging the immediate suspension of the CHA license based on evidence gathered during preliminary investigation. Another order confirmed the suspension till proceedings under Regulation 22 of CHA Licensing Regulation were completed. A subsequent appeal against the suspension was found to be infructuous and dismissed, leading to the focus on the appeal against the suspension order dated 20.1.2012.

2. The appellant contested the suspension order without being confronted with the gathered materials, alleging non-compliance with Regulation 20 of CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004. The authority was accused of exercising powers under Regulation 20(2) and 20(3) for the initial and subsequent orders, respectively. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to provide copies of all statements and evidence relied upon, emphasizing the appellant's right to respond to the evidence against them.

3. The Revenue presented incriminating evidence gathered during the investigation, including statements implicating the appellant in filing a fraudulent Bill of Entry and clearing unknown goods. The Tribunal noted the seriousness of the charges and the need for a fair hearing process. Referring to a relevant court decision, the Tribunal decided not to interfere with the suspension order at that stage due to the gravity of the allegations.

4. Acknowledging the need for a fair opportunity for the appellant to defend against the charges, the Tribunal outlined a detailed adjudication process. The Commissioner was directed to issue a notice with the charges and relied-upon documents, allowing the appellant four weeks to present a defense. A timely hearing and the appellant's choice to appear in person or through a representative were emphasized, with a deadline set for the Commissioner to pass an appropriate order post the conclusion of the hearing.

In conclusion, both appeals were disposed of in accordance with the outlined adjudication process, ensuring a fair opportunity for the appellant to respond to the charges brought against them.