9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffice at 105, Tapinex House, 15, Sholapur Street, Mumbai-09 and Branch office at 401-404, Nitika Tower-I, Azadpur Complex, Delhi-33. It is alleged that one fictitious person by name as Manoj holding H card No. R-116/2000, issued by the Policy Section of Customs House, New Delhi authorizing him to do clearance at Customs Station of Delhi on behalf of M/s. Zenith J S Q Co. India owned by one Mr. Anand Jain presented the shipping Bills before the Customs Authority of Air Cargo for allowing clearance. M/s. Zenith Co. also forged the signatures of Customs Officials on Manual Let Export Order during the month of December, 2001. That the name of Authorized Customs House Agent on the Shipping Bill was shown as M/s. Cannon Shipping Co. Ltd. ow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of Customs, Mumbai and allowed the appeal of the appellants. The appellants were astonished and shocked to receive another order on 16-5-2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi is based on the same facts and findings involving same issue between same parties which was already taken up by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai and the same was set aside by the Tribunal at Mumbai. Therefore, the present appeal is against suspension order of CHA License received on 16-5-2005. 4. On behalf of the appellants, it is contended that the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi is estopped under the law in suspending the CHA License based on the same set of facts between involving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellants assert that the premises at 51 LSC, DDA Complex, Ring Road, Naraina, New Delhi is still in existence. The authorities concerned alleged that the said premises do not exist. There is no material evidence on record to establish connection between the appellants and Mr. Manoj and also M/s. Zenith J S Q Co. (India) or Mr. Anand Jain. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, we set aside the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi in suspending the CHA License of the appellants. However, the Customs Authorities are at liberty to proceed with the enquiry against the appellants and if found guilty of the alleged act and may take necessary action as provided under the Regulations. In the result, the appeal is all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tuticorin licence to be in order and has directed for a post decisional hearing. I see no reason for making a departure in this case and not allowing a post decisional hearing in terms of the Larger Bench decision in the case of Freightwings and Travels Ltd. (cited supra). 9. I also find that in the case of International Cargo Service v. Union of India reported in 2006 (193) E.L.T. 546 (Del.), the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has considered at length the question of suspension of CHA licence under Regulation 20(2) and has held that the only way in which Regulations 20 and 22 of CHA Licensing Regulations, 2004 can operate without conflict is to hold that an order of suspension in emergent situation can be passed for recorded reasons w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od. It is made clear that this order will not stand in the way of the Commissioner holding an enquiry and proceeding against the appellants under Rules 20(1) and 22 of CHA Regulations, 2004. Sd/- (C. Satapathy) Member (Technical) Date : 2-8-2006 DIFFERENCE OF OPINION 11. The following difference of opinion is placed before the Hon ble President in terms of Section 129C(5) of the Customs Act 1962 :- (1) Whether impugned order suspending the CHA licence shall be set aside as decided by the ld. Member (Judicial), Or (2) Whether the matter be remitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner to grant a post decisional hearing to the appellants in terms of Larger Bench decision in the case of Freightwings and Travels ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the submissions. I find that the facts, leading to suspension of licence at Delhi, are one and the same, which were prevalent in the order passed by Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, but in a situation where a CHA holds multiple licences falling under jurisdiction of different Commissionerates, the proceedings will have to be initiated simultaneously by all the Commissionerates, once misconduct on the part of a CHA is noticed at any Custom Station. In view of this, I find nothing wrong in initiation of separate proceedings by Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, who has confined the proceedings, insofar as it relates to the licence granted by Commissioner of Customs, Delhi only. However, I do find that, on similar facts, the order of Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
