2006 (7) TMI 436

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pplication for disposal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant (CHA) submits that, by the impugned order, the Commissioner has done injustice to the CHA by continuing the suspension of their licence till 31-10-2006 without any valid reason. It is submitted that the suspension of licence was ordered under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licence Regulations, 2004, in the wake of launch of investigations by the CBI into certain exports made by some of the erstwhile clients of the CHA in August, 2003. It is submitted that the said investigations were occasioned by a belated discovery of non-realisation of export proceeds. The exports were otherwise complete and the CHA's role was over. The drawback claims filed by the export....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....against the said party (CHA) was upheld by the High Court. Special mention is made of Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the High Court judgment which read as under :- "12. An order of suspension, pending enquiry, passed under Regulation 20(2) cannot be construed as an order of punishment nor as an order of suspension, which deals only the substantial punishment, intended in Regulation 22(1) nor such an order of suspension, pending enquiry, would stand as a stigma on the appellant while the respondent proposed to pass final orders by following the procedure prescribed under Regulations. Therefore, the reference to Section 22(1) of the said Regulation and the context made in that regard by the learned Counsel for the appellant is totally misnom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at an enquiry is pending against the CHA since 2004. A show-cause notice will be issued to them only upon completion of the enquiry. The question now is whether the suspension of their licence in 2006 would constitute "immediate action" with reference to the enquiry against them, which was started as far back as in 2004. We think, there is another aspect also to be considered under Regulation 20(2) ibid, and the same is whether this is an "appropriate" case for such "immediate" action. Against this background, we consider the impugned order, which states that the Government have been defrauded to the tune of Rs. 2.04 crores due to callous attitude of the CHA and further that investigation of the case is proposed to be handed over to CBI. Le....