9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 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 W.P.No.16955 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012. The Hon'ble High Court vide its order dt. 17.7.2012 directed to file appeal before the Tribunal and granted stay of the impugned order till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal. He submits that till date neither show cause notice was issued nor enquiry officer has been appointed for conducting the enquiry under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. He submits that the Tribunal in several decisions on identical ground set aside the suspension order. He particularly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of D.Thimmeswara Rao & Others Vs CC (Port-Import) vide Final Order No.40566-40569/2013 dt. 12.11.2013 wherein the suspension orders were set aside. Ld. Advocate submits the above Tribunal's order dt. 12.11.2012 has been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court in C.M.A.No.1422 to 1426 of 2014 dt. 27.6.2014. 4. Ld. AR on be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spension 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 FOR SUSPENDING OR REVOKING LICENCE UNDER REGULATION 20. - (1) The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs House Agent [within ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to suspend or revoke the licence and requiring the said Customs House Agent to submit within thirty days], to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs House Agent desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs. Provided that the procedure prescribed in regulation 22 shall not apply in respect of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns 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 is to be taken. 10. It may be noted that investigation to unearth evidence required to issue SCN and inquiry as envisaged in Regulation 22(1) are two distinct processes. Investigation is to be done by Revenue using its powers to unearth documents and to record statements which process apparently has been done in this case substantially even before the suspension order was passed and investigating authority had given report and on that basis suspension order was passed. Now, the next stage is the enquiry as envisaged in Regulation 22 (1). This can commence only after issue of a Show Cause Notice, as envisaged in Regulation 22(1), which has not been done in this case so far. We are of the view t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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 of suspension only if there is undue delay in conduct of further investigation and further proceedings and when the delay not been attributable to the appellant. It is further observed that no details are available on further proceedings and the reason or delay, if any. In the present case, we find that the appellants requested to issue of notice as required under Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR, 2004 despite the order of the Hon'ble High Court, no notice was issued till date. 10.1 The decision in Maharaja Cargo (supra) is a single Member decision. In the case of H.B. Cargo (supra), the issue was revocation of licence which would not apply in the present case, as the issue before us is suspension of lic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
