Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
M/S. Sri Venkateswara Clearing And ... vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 26 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(138)ELT615(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER
Jeet Ram Kait(T), Member
1. This is an appeal filed by m/s Sri Venkateswara Clearing and forwarding Agent, Chennai against the order in original, F.No.R.502/CHA dt. 13.9.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, of suspension of Customs House Agent licence under the provision of Regulation 21(2) of CHALR, 1984.
Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Regulation 21 (2), suspended the licence as he felt that an immediate action in this case was called for to suspend the licence.
3. Shri Murugappan, Ld. Counsel appeared for the Appellants and Shri S. Sudarsan, Ld. JDR appeared for the Revenue.
4. We have heard both sides. The Ld. Counsel relies on the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. K.P.S. & Co. vs. C.C., Madras vide final order No. 1763/2000 dt. 8.12.2000 wherein in an identical case, the bench has set aside the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. The Appellant submits that there is no basis whatsoever alleging that the CHA were actively involved in the attempt of smuggling/misdeclaration by the importer namely Shri V.C. Mohan of M/s. Moon Star Automation P. Ltd. Further, the investigation made by the Revenue have not revealed anything against the appellant who has only shown that one of the clerks employed by the firm Shri Janakiraman was involved in the matter alongwith Shri V.C. Mohan. Therefore, under the said circumstances the conclusion arrived at by the Revenue to the fact that the Appellant has misused the CHA Licence is without any substance. They have also stated that any suspension of the licence is to be done in terms of the Regulations 21 (1) of the Customs House Agent Licence Regulation, 1984 referred to above, by following the procedure stipulated in the Regulation 23 of the aforesaid Regulations by issue of notice calling for a written statement, conducting inquiry along with thorough examination by the officer and finally taking an action based on the report of the inquiry officer, reply to the inquiry replied by the Customs House Agent and any further representation to be made by the Customs House Agent. He has further submitted that the Revenue has violated the principles of natural justice and on this specific provision provided for in the regulation, the Commissioner has violated this procedure before suspending the licence. We are of the considered opinion that the lower adjudicating authority in violation of the principles of natural justice has exercised the power under Regulation 21 (2) without any basis. The order also does not bring out how this case is an appropriate case to fall under Regulation 21 (2) and there was an emergent situation which required despensation of issuing a notice for suspension of the licence and drastic action was called for.
5. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the powers under Regulation 21 (2) has been exercised as far as the present appellant is concerned without any basis and the findings in the present order also do not lead that a case under Regulation 21(2) was called for. The order of suspension, therefore, under Regulation 21 (1) cannot be sustained. Hence, the order of suspension is required to be set aside.
Ordered accordingly.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)