Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Vikas Shipping Agency vs Commissioner Of Customs on 3 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1998(98)ELT275(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. The Miscellaneous Application as well as the appeal are against the order of the Commissioner of Customs ordering suspension of the Custom House Agent Licence in terms of Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 1984.
2. Shri J.C. Patel the ld. Counsel for the applicant appellant refers to the impugned order. This order states that, whereas a report has been received from the Central Intelligence Unit of this Custom House, that investigations into irregular clearance of one-piece unmutilated garments in the guise of 'pre-mutilated old woollen rags', in relation to which the applicant appellant as Custom House Agent has come to the adverse notice, the Commissioner has in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 21(2) CHA Licence Regulations has suspended the CHA 11/935 held by the applicant appellant. The ld. Counsel referred to the several decisions of the Tribunal relied upon in the case of Eagle Shipping (India) Services v. Collector of Customs - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 419 (Tribunal), the Tribunal held that, the basic requirement of Regulation 21(2) namely the necessity of immediate action and the nature of seriousness of the violation, for which inquiry is contemplated should be indicated in the suspension order, so as to make itself contained and revealing, for any judicial scrutiny as to satisfy that the Collector has applied his mind to these provisions. Holding this view of the matter, the Tribunal set aside the order, but gave the liberty to the Commissioner to pass a speaking order. In a further decision of Trinity Shipping & Allied Services (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs - 1994 (50) ECR 319 (Tribunal) the aforesaid earlier decision was followed, where the Tribunal set aside the order of suspension giving the liberty to the Collector to pass appropriate orders in terms of the aforesaid observations. In, another decision handed by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal Syed Ahmed & Co. v. Collector of Customs - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal), the Tribunal ordered restoration of the licence taking the view that the continuous suspension of the licence affected the livelihood of the licensee, and the Commissioner was directed to restore the licence after taking suitable safeguards to facilitate proper investigation. The ld. Counsel pleaded that in this case also the impugned order suspending the licence has been passed in November, 1996 and only during the present month of September, 1997 the show cause notice has been issued. The applicant appellant has suffered during the intervening period because of storage of work and it was pleaded that the precedent decision cited above should be applied to the applicants appellants case also and licence should be related and the suspension of the licence should be revoked.
3. Shri K.L. Ramteke the ld. JDR contended that the seriousness of the lapse on the part of the CHA has been brought out in the impugned order, wherein it has been found that he was involved in a case of mis-declaration for complete garments as mutilated garments. The Commissioner has ordered the suspension of the licence in terms of the power vested on him under regulation 21(2).
4. We have carefully considered the submissions made. In this case the impugned order has been passed in November, 1996 and no immediate action has been taken as we have found that show cause notice came to be issued only during this month after 10 months. In these circumstances the precedent decisions cited before us do apply in the present case, so far as it does not show the immediate nature of the lapse leading to the suspension of the licence, the order under Regulation 21(2). The perusal of the order shows this as not forthcoming in the impugned order. Therefore following the precedent decisions in these circumstances following the ratio of the precedent decisions, we set aside the suspension order which has been appealed against and directed the Commissioner to restore the licence and permit the appellants to carry on their business in accordance with law and with due deligence, without prejudice to the ultimate result of the formal proceedings already initiated by the Commissioner under Regulations 23 of the CHA Licence Regulations, 1984.