2000 (9) TMI 467 - AT - Customs

Tribunal reinstates Customs Agent license, stresses timely process compliance.

The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order revoking the appellant's Customs House Agent license. A new enquiry officer was ... Customs House Agent’s licence Issues:Revocation of Customs House Agent license under Regulation 21 of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 1984.Analysis:The appeal challenges the order revoking the license of the appellant to function as a Customs House Agent in Kandla Customs House. The notice contained five charges, and witnesses were listed to support these charges. The appellant denied all charges, leading to an enquiry conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs. The report of the enquiry officer indicated that only one witness had been exempted, and it was not clear if this witness was made available for cross-examination. The remaining witnesses were not examined or offered for cross-examination, and the enquiry officer relied on their previous statements. This lack of proper examination and cross-examination raises concerns about the validity of the enquiry process.The Regulations outline a detailed procedure for conducting such enquiries under Regulation 23. However, the enquiry officer did not provide reasons for not exempting certain witnesses as required by sub-regulation (4). The customs house agent is entitled to examine exempted persons, but this was not done in this case. The failure to conduct a thorough enquiry as per the Regulations renders the entire process and subsequent order of the Commissioner invalid. The judgment highlights the importance of following the prescribed procedures to ensure a fair and just enquiry process.The appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. It directed the Commissioner to appoint a new enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry strictly in accordance with the Regulations. The tribunal also expressed concern over the significant delay in the process, emphasizing the impact on the livelihood and business goodwill of the appellant. A strict timeline of four months was set for the completion of the enquiry and issuance of final orders. Failure to adhere to this timeline without valid reasons would allow the appellant to seek further redress from the tribunal. This decision underscores the need for timely and fair resolution of such matters to prevent undue hardship on the parties involved.