9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 461X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Karthikeyan, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. One of these applications is for stay of operation of the impugned order wherein learned Commissioner of Customs, Chennai suspended the operation of CHA Licence No. R-238/CHA granted to the applicant by the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam. The second application is for out-of-turn disposal of the appeal filed by the CHA. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we arc of the view that the appeal can be finally disposed of at this stage. According, after allowing the application for out-of-turn disposal of appeal but dismissing the stay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rected against the Commissioner s order. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel that the order of suspension of operation of the CHA licence is without any valid reason relatable to Regulation 20 (2). It is submitted that suspension is not consistent with the finding recorded by the Commissioner, which is to the effect that the licence is liable to be revoked and the security deposit of the CHA is liable to be forfeited in terms of Regulation 20(1) on the ground of non-compliance with the obligations set out under CHALR, 2004. Learned counsel further submits that the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai is not competent to suspend the operation of a CHA licence issued by another Commissioner (Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam). It is also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lation 20(2). That provision enabled the Commissioner, in appropriate cases where immediate action was necessary, to suspend the licence of CHA where an enquiry against the CHA was pending or contemplated. In the impugned order, learned Commissioner found, against the CHA, non-compliance with Regulation 13 (a), (d), (e) and (f) of CHALR, 2004. On this basis, he concluded that the CHA was liable to be punished by way of revocation of the licence and/or forfeiture of the security deposited by them, in terms of Regulation 20(1). Regulation 20(1) authorised the Commissioner to revoke CHA licence and order for forfeiture of security deposit, subject to the provisions of Regulation 22, on certain grounds specified under sub-regulation (1). One o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts and circumstances of the case, it was observed as under :- It was a case for invoking Regulation 20(2) of the said Regulations which is meant only in cases where immediate action is necessary. In such a case even without giving notice the licence could be suspended. We make it clear that the observations of the CESTAT that in all cases of suspension the procedure under Regulation 22(1) ought to have been followed in the sense prior notice before suspension ought to be given, cannot be sustained. A bare reading of Regulation 20(2) very clearly indicates that where immediate action is necessary the Commissioner of Customs has been granted such a power to suspend such licence where an enquiry against such agent is pending or even co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
