9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1045X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erent passengers during the period from June to October 2009. It is submitted that in October 2011, statements of the appellants were recorded. On 25.4.2012, suspension orders were issued under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004. Then, by the impugned orders, all dated 23.5.2012, suspension was confirmed under Regulation 20(3) of the CHALR, 2004. He submits that the appellant challenged the suspension orders before the Hon'ble Madras High Court by way of filing writ petition. By judgment dated 2.7.2012, the Hon'ble Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the authorities to follow the procedures under Regulation 22(2) of the CHALR, 2004 and the impugned orders shall be kept in abeyance till disposal of the matter. Revenue filed appeal before the Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court. By judgment dated 4.1.2013, the Hon'ble Division Bench directed the appellants to file appeals before this Tribunal under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. 3.1 He submits that despite the direction of the Hon'ble Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 2.7.2012 the authorities had not ini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omplex. It has been alleged that there are some falsifications in the documents produced by the CHA for baggage clearance during the period June to October 2009. The statements were recorded only in October 2011. After receipt of the offence report, the Commissioner immediately issued suspension order under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004. The Commissioner after complying with the procedure insofar as personal hearing was granted and the appellants filed representation and thereafter the impugned orders were passed directing continuation of the suspension of the CHAs under Regulation 20(3) of the CHALR, 2004. 5.1 There is no dispute that Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR would apply in respect of suspension of licence of CHA in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary and where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Customs, in terms of Regulation 20(3) after hearing the CHA may pass such order either revoking the suspension or continuing it. In the present cases, by the impugned orders all dated 23.5.2012 issued under Regulation 20(3), the Commissioner of Customs directed continuation of suspension. The Hon'ble Singl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch oral evidence as may be relevant or material to the inquiry in regard to the grounds forming the basis of the proceedings, and he may also put any question to any person tendering evidence for or against the Customs House Agent, for the purpose of ascertaining the correct position. 7. On a plain reading of Regulation 22(2), it is clear that the Commissioner of Customs upon receipt of the reply to notice issued under sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 22, would direct the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs to inquire The learned Advocate rightly submitted that sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 22 is linked with sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 22. We find that despite the direction of the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court vide order dated 2.7.2012 to follow the procedure under Regulation under 22(2), no notice was issued till date. 8. In the case of Fast Track International (supra), as relied upon by the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue, the Tribunal observed that a show-cause notice under Rule 22 is required to be issued. In a recent decision, this Tribunal in the case of Manjunatha Shipping Services Ltd. Vs. Commissioner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, we find that after two years from the date of suspension not even the show cause notice, is issued for initiation of enquiry which should have been followed in the case of an inquiry pending or contemplated on passing of the suspension order dated 02.09.2011, as required under Regulation 22 (1). At this stage, we cannot accept that such a step is still being contemplated. No person is right to carry on his profession can be stopped for a prolonged period through the means of a suspension order. Such an approach is against provisions in Regulations 20 and 22 of CHLAR. So we are of the view that the impugned order suspending the license of the appellant is no longer sustainable in view of the decision of Hon. Madras High Court in the case of CC Vs. Ganesh Shipping Agency-2009 (245) ELT 120 (Mad). So we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 9. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Falcon Air Cargo (supra) observed that suspension would obviously meant that licence would be inoperative for a particular period and the order of revocation would mean that the licence is totally inoperative in future. The Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
