Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. A.K.Sircar & Sons vs Commr. Of Customs (Airport & Admn.), ... on 14 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA
EASTERN ZONAL BENCH: KOLKATA
Appeal No.C/76250/2016
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.KOL/CUS/Airport/Admn./12/2016 dated 31.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration), Kolkata)
M/s. A.K.Sircar & Sons
Applicant (s)/Appellant (s)
Vs.
Commr. Of Customs (Airport & Admn.), Kolkata
Respondent (s)
Appearance:
Shri D.K.Acharya, Consultant and Shri Udayan Ganguly, Consultant for the Appellant (s) Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s) CORAM:
Honble SHRI JUSTICE (DR.) SATISH CHANDRA, PRESIDENT Honble SHRI ASHOK K.ARYA, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision:-15.12.2016 ORDER NO.FO/A/76319/2016 Per Dr. Satish Chandra,
1. The present appeal is filed against the impugned Order-in-Original No.6/2016 dated 28.04.2016.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a Custom House Agent [Now Customs Broker as per Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013]. The license was issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. The appellant is working as a Customs Broker for more than 50 years.
3. DRI, KZU seized some red colored wooden logs on the belief that those were Red Sanders attempted to be smuggled out to Singapore on the guise of export of Accessories of Sanitary ware. The goods had been examined and sealed by jurisdictional Central Excise Officer on 26.02.2016 and subsequently, granted Let Export Order by the Customs Officers at Kolkata port on 29.02.2016. Vide Order dated 28.04.2016, the license of the appellant was suspended.
4. Finally, the license was suspended vide final order dated 03.06.2016. Being aggrieved the appellant knocked the door of the Tribunal. With this background we heard Shri D.K.Acharya, Consultant and Shri Udayan Ganguly, Consultant for the Appellant (s) and Shri S.K.Naskar, AC(AR) for the Respondent (s).
5. From the record, it appears that the Commissioner has passed the order on 28.04.2016 and provided hearing only on 18.05.2016. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that as per Rule 19 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013, the period is 15 days. Ld. Counsel submits that opportunity for hearing was provided beyond the period of 15 days. He also submits that the order was passed on 03.06.2016 but the same was served on 07.06.16. Ld. Counsel also relied on the ratios laid down in the following cases:
1) Schankar Clearing & Forwarding vs. C.C.Import (General)[2012(283) E.L.T.349(Del.)]
2) Commr. Of Customs, Kandla vs. Saarthee Shipping Co.[2016(336) E.L.T. 303 (Guj.)]
3) K.S.Sawant & Co. vs. Commr. Of Customs (General)[2012(284)E.L.T. 363(Tri.Mumbai)]
4) M/s. Fairdeal Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Customs (Airport & Administation), Kolkata [Order No.A-553/KOL/2010 dt. 14.10.2010]
5) D.V.R. Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Customs (Imports), Chennai [ 2016(335) E.L.T. 138 (Tri.Chennai)]
6) Impexnet Logistics vs. Commr. Of Customs (General)[2016(338) E.L.T.347 (Del.)]
7) HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commr. Of Customs (General), Delhi[2016(338)E.L.T.365 (Del.)]
8) Overseas Air Cargo Services vs. Commr. Of Customs (General), Delhi[2016(340) E.L.T. 119 (Del.)]
9) Trans Asian Shipping Services (P) Ltd. vs. Concor Container Freight Station[2016(340)E.L.T. 123 (Mad.)]
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the department submits that the hearing was given at the earliest but there were some holidays and Sunday and Saturday were suffixed. He also submits that the final order was passed for the suspension by the competent authority on 03.06.2016.
7. By considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the material, we are of the view that by suspension of the license, the livelihood of the appellant has suffered. Without saying much, we direct the Commissioner who is the competent authority, to pass final order in the case within the period of one month after receiving this order. Commissioner may revoke the suspension or confirm suspension on merit but by providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Additional evidence may be admitted as per law.
In the result, the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
(Dictated and Pronounced in the Open Court)
S/d. (Justice Dr. Satish Chandra)
President
S/d.
(Ashok Kumar Arya)
MEMBER (Technical)
ss
1 Appeal No.C/76250/2016