9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensing Regulations, 2004. The impugned order lists out five cases involving misconduct on the part of the appellant. 2. Ld. Advocate Shri R.B. Pardeshi for the appellant submits that the appellant is a reputed CHA and the volume of work shows that the firm was handling more than 3000 export/import documents during the year 2003-06. It is his submission that under Regulation 20(2) of the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 suspension can be resorted to in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary. The events of misconduct cited in the Commissioners order relate to the year 2001, whereas, the suspension order has been issued in December 2007. Therefore, if the misconduct has occurred six years earlier, it cannot be co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eferring to the five instances pointed out by the Commissioner in his order of suspension, he submitted that the first case related to some detection by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Mumbai in the year 2002 and even in that case, the penalty imposed on the CHA by the original authority was set aside by the Tribunal and therefore this case cannot be made basis for immediate suspension of the licence. In the second instance pointed out in the order, it was submitted that in this case the appellant was not even a noticee and the show cause notice was issued to some other CHA and here also the order-in-original was set aside by the Tribunal. This event has taken place in the year 2001. In respect of the other three cases, he admitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n emergent situation and the powers under Regulation 20(2) have to be exercised as the Government cannot jeopardize its revenue. The cases cited by the appellant did not involve a situation where charges of misconduct has been established or penalties have been imposed for aiding and abetting misdeclaration and fraudulent claim, of drawback, as is the situation in the present case. In such a situation, there is no requirement of personal hearing as powers under Regulation 20(2) are not subject to the procedure prescribed under Regulation 22. It is only when suspension is done under Regulation 20(1) that the procedure under Regulation 20(2) is to be followed as suspension under Regulation 20(1) is subject to the provisions of Regulation 22 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CHA. In various decisions of the various High Courts and Tribunal cited by the appellant the situation as brought out in the impugned order was not present and there was no instance where the charges of aiding and abetting misdeclaration and fraudulent claim of drawback has been confirmed by the competent authority Those case Jaws are therefore not relevant. As regards grant of personal hearing as per the Regulation 22 before issuing the order of suspension under Regulation 20(2) it has been held by the Hon Bombay High Court in the case of Raj Clearing Agency (supra) that where immediate action is necessary, personal hearing can not be granted and grant of personal hearing is not mandatory in all cases. Even in the case of S.A. Dalal & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
