Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal was filed by a Custom House Agent aggrieved by the Commissioners order suspending the CHA Licence under Regulation 20(2) of the Custom House Agent licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004. The circumstances leading to the Commissioners order arose as early as in August 2006. The appellant had filed a shipping bill on behalf of M/s. LMJ Internatioanl Ltd. (exporter) for the export of a consignment of what was declared as Soyabean. The vessel containing the cargo sailed of on 12.8.2006 before a Let Export Order was issued by the proper officer of Customs under Section 51 of the Customs Act. The department booked a case against the exporter, the CHA and shipping line for the above malfeasance and accordingly issued a show-cause notice for penalizing them under Section 114 of the Customs Act. This show-cause notice came to be adjudicated upon by the Commissioner of Customs, JNCH on 28.2.2007, who imposed penalties on all the parties including the CHA. Appeals were filed with this Tribunal and the same were disposed of on 29.11.2007. The Tribunal sustained the penalty on the CHA and others, though the quantum of penalty on the CHA was reduced. We are told that the CHA took the Tribunals order-in-appeal to the Honble High Court and that High Court has stayed its operation.

2. The Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House Mumbai, took note of the above developments on 10.10.2008 and suspended the CHA licence on 16.10.2008 under Regulation 20 (2) of CHALR 2004 on the ground that it was necessary to prevent the CHA to transact business in Mumbai Commissionerate for further misuse of the CHA Licence. The suspension order was passed without hearing the CHA and the same is the order impugned in the present appeal of the CHA.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned SDR for the respondent, we have found valid reasons to interfere. The Commissioners order was passed under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 of the CHALR, which authorized the Commissioner in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary, suspend the licence of a Customs House Agent where an enquiry against such agent is pending or contemplated. In the present case, the counsel has submitted that no enquiry whatsoever was initiated against the appellant under the CHALR. He has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the suspension order as ill-founded. The learned SDR has not disputed the fact stated by the counsel that no enquiry has so far been initiated against the CHA under the CHALR. In this scenario, we have to hold that the conduct of the respondent does not disclose any urgency or immediacy for purposes of Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR. According to the Commissioner, the role played by the CHA in connection with the export in question was brought to his notice on 10.10.2008 only. It would mean that neither the investigating agency nor the adjudicating authority had passed on the requisite information to the Commissioner of Customs (General). Be that as it may, even after receiving information on 10.10.2008, the respondent-Commissioner appears to be sleeping over the matter. It is this conduct of the respondent which has the effect of ruling out immediacy or urgency of suspension of the CHA Licence. That the CHA was not heard before passing the impugned order is another matter.