9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellant : Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms.Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per P.K. Das 1. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant is operating with CHA Licence No.R.227/CHA (PAN ABPFS5547Q) issued under the provisions of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004 (CHALR). The appellant filed shipping bill for export of 28,590 sq.ft of Sheep Resin lining finished leather packed in 31 bundles on behalf of exporter M/s. Benign International. After examination of the goods, it was found that 26 bundles were called as semi-finished leather and it attracts export duty. 2. The Commissioner of Customs issued suspension order dt. 11.5.2012 of CHA licence under Regulation 20 (2) of CHALR 2004. Subsequently, by the impugned order dt. 6.6.2012, the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) in exercise of power conferred under the provisions of Regulation 20 (3) of CHALR, 2004 ordered continuation of the suspension of CHA licence, against which the present appeal was filed. 3. The learned advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant challenged the impugned order before the Hon'ble Madras High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oking 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 Honble Single Judge of the Madras High Court by judgment dated 2.7.2012 directed the authorities to follow the procedure under Regulation 22(2) of the CHALR, 2004. It appears from the judgment dated 4.1.2013 of the Hon ble Division Bench of the High Court in Revenues appeal, the learned counsel for the Revenue submitted that as against the impugned order dated 23.5.2012, a statutory alternative remedy of appeal is provided under Section 129A(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. In this context, the Division Bench of the High Court directed the appellants to file appeal before the Tribunal. 6. It is significant to note that both the suspension orders dated 25.4.2012 and 23.5.2012 were issued under Regulation 20(2) and 20(3) respectively in the perspective of an enquiry is pending or contemplated against CHA. The procedure of enquiry is envisaged under Regulation 22 and the relevant provisions of the said Regulation are reproduced below:- REGULATION 22. PROCEDURE FO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served 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 of Customs (Import), Chennai vide Final Order No. 40461/2013 dated 10.10.2013 observed that show-cause notice is necessary for the purpose of inquiry under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. The relevant portion of the order in the case of Manjunatha Shipping Services Ltd. (supra) are reproduced below:- 9. Regulation 22(1) is applicable for issuing both suspension order and revocation order. However Regulation 20(2) authorizes the Commissioner of Customs to suspend the licence of a CHA in emergent situations without following the procedure under Regulation 22(1). It is very obvious that immediate suspension of license is permitted only when an enquiry is pending is contemplated. The non obstante clause Regulation 20(2) makes an exception only in the matter of suspension and not in the matter of revocation. So, it is implied that such inquiry has to be completed, within the time frame prescribed in various sub-regulations of Regulation 22 and a final view in the matter of revocation of license i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e inoperative for a particular period and the order of revocation would mean that the licence is totally inoperative in future. The Hon ble High Court further observed that the effect of the action vis-`-vis right to carry on trade or profession in the background of Article 19(I)(g) of the Constitution has to be noted in the case of suspension of licence. We find that the Tribunal in the case of Manjunatha Shipping Services (supra), set aside the suspension order, where no notice was issued even after two years of suspension order. Hence it is depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, suspension orders were issued on 25.4.2012 under Regulation 20(2) and despite the order dated 2.7.2012 of the Hon ble Single Judge of the High Court, no notice was issued till date. In our considered view, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Manjunatha Shipping Services (supra) would apply in the facts and circumstances of the present appeals. . 10. The learned AR for Revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Fast Track International (supra). In that case, the Tribunal observed that there may be cases for interfering with the order o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld not tantamount the compliance of Regulation under 22 and therefore, the substantial question of law raised in these appeals are answered in negative against the appellant in these appeals. 35. In the result, all these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed confirming the orders dated 10.10.2013 in Final Order No.40461/2013 and the orders dated 12.11.2013 in Final Order No.40566 to 40569 of 2013 respectively on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 7. We find that Tribunal in the case of Manjunath Shipping Services Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai vide Final Order No.40461/2013 dated 10.10.2013 on the identical situation set aside suspension order, which was upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. In the present case, initial suspension order dated 11.5.2012 was issued under Regulation 20 (2) of CHALR, 2004 and which was continued by the impugned order dt. 6.6.2012 issued under Regulation 20 (3) of CHALR, 2004. It is seen that no proceeding was initiated under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 in so far as no show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
