9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1016 - AT - CustomsImmediate Suspension of CHA License - habitual offender - Regulation 20 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - Time for issuance of Suspension notice - Misdeclaration of the value of artificial leather cloth imported - Forgery of the signatures of officers of the CHA company during the course of clearance of imported goods under DEPB - Held that - the allegation that the appellant is a habitual offender, on the basis of the order of revocation of their CHA licence on 18-8-2006 has already been set aside by this Tribunal and the same has been confirmed by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay vide order dated 8-2-2012, is not sustainable. Impugned order has been filed within 15 days as prescribed in Regulation 20(2), as the offence report was received by the Commissioner on 5-11-2012 and the order of suspension was passed on 15-11-2012. Therefore, the same is within time - investigation is going on and the grounds on which the licence has been suspended are not sustainable as the appellant is neither a habitual offender. The statement of Shri Vishal Madan cannot be relied upon at this stage. Further, the fact that the appellant has filed an application for inclusion of the names of Shri Surendra Pandey and Shri Nagendra Pandey as Directors and police verification has been conducted has not been denied. Therefore, the order of suspension of the CHA Licence No. 11/273 under Regulation 20(2) is not sustainable and accordingly the same itself is set aside - respondent is directed to revoke the suspension of CHA Licence - Decided in favour of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of CHA Licence under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004. 2. Allegations of habitual offenses by the appellant. 3. Procedural discrepancies in the suspension process. 4. Validity of statements and evidence used against the appellant. 5. Compliance with statutory time limits under Regulation 20(2) and (3) of CHALR, 2004. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Suspension of CHA Licence under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004: The appellant's CHA Licence No. 11/273 was suspended under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004, based on an investigation report from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) alleging undervaluation of imported artificial leather cloth by certain firms using the appellant's licence. 2. Allegations of Habitual Offenses by the Appellant: The adjudicating authority cited the appellant as a habitual offender, referencing a previous instance of alleged forgery of signatures leading to the suspension of the CHA licence in 2006. However, this suspension was later revoked by the Tribunal and upheld by the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority's reliance on this past incident was factually incorrect and unsustainable. 3. Procedural Discrepancies in the Suspension Process: The appellant contended that the suspension order was replete with errors, including incorrect statements about the filing of Bills of Entry and the timing of summons issued to Shri Surendra Kumar Pandey. The Tribunal noted that the DRI's letter dated 11-10-2012 requesting suspension of the Bills of Entry was issued before any summons were served to Shri Surendra Kumar Pandey, making the DRI's action premature and unjustified. 4. Validity of Statements and Evidence Used Against the Appellant: The suspension relied heavily on the statements of Shri Vishal Madan and Shri Pall Singh Lohiya. Shri Vishal Madan's statement, which implicated Shri Surendra Kumar Pandey, was retracted in a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, claiming it was made under coercion. The Tribunal found that relying on this retracted statement was inappropriate. Additionally, the statement of Shri Pall Singh Lohiya was not provided to the appellant in a timely manner, further undermining the procedural fairness of the suspension. 5. Compliance with Statutory Time Limits under Regulation 20(2) and (3) of CHALR, 2004: The appellant argued that the suspension order exceeded the statutory time limits. The Tribunal, however, found that the suspension order dated 15-11-2012 was within the permissible time frame, as it was issued within 15 days of receiving the offence report from the DRI on 5-11-2012. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the grounds for suspension were not sustainable. The appellant was not a habitual offender, and the statement of Shri Vishal Madan could not be relied upon at this stage. Furthermore, the appellant had duly informed the authorities about the inclusion of new directors, and police verification had been conducted. The Tribunal set aside the suspension order and directed the respondent to revoke the suspension of CHA Licence No. 11/273 within 15 days. The Tribunal also allowed the stay application and the application for early hearing.
|
