2019 (8) TMI 276 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - the export goods were found to be overvalued -order for suspension was passed almost after 2 years from the date of seizure - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the goods with reference to which the suspension order was passed was seized on 10.03.2017 and the SCN was issued on 07.09.2017 - If at all the revenue is of view, customs broker should be prohibited from carrying out the work of customs broker, the license should have been suspended immediately after detection of the case by the customs authority whereas in the present case admittedly, the order for suspension was passed almost after 2 years from the date of seizure. The suspension order not valid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Suspension of CB license after a delay of almost 2 years from the date of seizure - Legality and necessity of immediate action for suspension - Interpretation of Rule 16 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013 - Applicability of previous tribunal and high court judgments on similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD addressed the issue of the suspension of a Customs Broker (CB) license after a significant delay from the date of seizure of goods. The appellant challenged the suspension order, arguing that as per Rule 16 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013, suspension should be an immediate action when required. The appellant cited the case of P. Sawasji & Co. Vs. CC (General), Mumbai to support their argument. The Revenue department, represented by Sh. S.N. Gohil, stood by the findings of the impugned order.

Upon thorough consideration, the Tribunal noted that the suspension order was issued almost two years after the seizure of goods, which did not align with the requirement of immediate action as per the regulations. Referring to the case of P. Sawasji & Co., the Tribunal emphasized that the power to suspend a CB license is not mandatory in every case and should be exercised only in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. The Tribunal highlighted the provision under Regulation 19(1) of CBLR, 2013, which allows for suspension in cases requiring immediate action.

The Tribunal concluded that in the present case, where the necessity for suspension was not immediate and the department waited for an extended period before taking action, the suspension of the CB license was deemed unjustified. Citing the judgment of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of National Shipping, the Tribunal emphasized that the power of suspension should be used in emergent cases where immediate suspension is required. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting the Principal Commissioner of Customs the liberty to conduct an inquiry and conclude the proceedings under CBLR, 2013.

In alignment with the previous tribunal and high court judgments on similar issues, the Tribunal held that the suspension order was not justified in the present case and set it aside, allowing the appeal and ordering the order to be given dasti.