2008 (9) TMI 326 - AT - Customs

CESTAT Chennai Upholds CHA License Suspension, Emphasizes Timely Enquiry Proceedings

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai upheld the suspension of the CHA license by the Commissioners of Customs, Tuticorin and Chennai under CHALR, 2004. ... CHA Licence – Suspension of - When the operation of the licence issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to the appellants is under suspension the appellants cannot carry on the business of CHA at Tuticorin. In other words, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin is inconsequential. Suspension of operation of the Tuticorin Commissioner’s permission is consequential to the suspension of operation of the CHA licence issued by the Chennai Commissioner. In this view of the matter, Appeal No. C/256/2008 is dismissed. Issues:1. Suspension of operation of permission under Regulation 9(2) of CHALR, 2004 by the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin.2. Suspension of operation of CHA license under Regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004 by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai.3. Applicability of Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004 for immediate suspension of license.4. Validity of suspensions and need for timely initiation of enquiry proceedings under Regulation 22.Analysis:1. Suspension of Permission under Regulation 9(2) by Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin:The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin suspended the operation of permission granted under Regulation 9(2) of CHALR, 2004 to the appellants due to violations. The appellants challenged the order, arguing that they were not given a post-decisional hearing and that the Commissioner could not review his own decision. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner's action was valid for immediate suspension based on evidence gathered, and directed quick initiation of enquiry proceedings to avoid the suspension being set aside.2. Suspension of CHA License under Regulation 9(1) by Commissioner of Customs, Chennai:The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai suspended the operation of the CHA license issued to the appellants under Regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004. The suspension was based on alleged breaches of regulations. The appellants contended that the suspension was unwarranted, and a delay in issuing a show-cause notice under Regulation 22 indicated lack of urgency. The Tribunal upheld the suspension but directed the Commissioner to initiate enquiry promptly to avoid nullifying the suspension order.3. Applicability of Regulation 20(2) for Immediate Suspension:Regulation 20(2) allows the suspension of a CHA license in cases where immediate action is necessary pending an enquiry under Regulation 22. The Tribunal clarified that the Commissioner can rely on oral evidence gathered under Section 108 of the Customs Act for immediate suspension under Regulation 20(2). The Tribunal differentiated between immediate suspension and regular suspension under Regulation 22, emphasizing the need for prompt action by the Commissioner.4. Validity of Suspensions and Timely Initiation of Enquiry Proceedings:The Tribunal analyzed the grounds for suspension by both Commissioners and found the actions appropriate based on the evidence. However, it emphasized the importance of promptly initiating enquiry proceedings under Regulation 22 to avoid the suspension orders being set aside due to delays. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of following due process and providing a post-decisional hearing, as established in legal precedents, to ensure fairness and procedural justice.In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed one appeal and upheld the suspension of the CHA license, emphasizing the need for timely initiation of enquiry proceedings to maintain the validity of the suspensions. The detailed analysis of each issue provides clarity on the legal aspects and procedural requirements involved in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Chennai.