2010 (9) TMI 1033

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n, the appeal is taken up for the disposal. The relevant facts for consideration are that the Commissioner of Customs, Customs House Port Area, Visakhapatnam had suspended the operation of Customs House Agent (CHA) licence under the provisions of Regulation 20(2) of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as CHALR). The Commissioner while suspending the CHA licence issued to the appellant herein had passed an order relied upon the information received from Docks Intelligence Unit of Customs House, Chennai on the ground that the CHA had failed on the part to comply with the provisions of CHALR, 2004 and also for misdeclaration of the goods which renders the CHA liable to action under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) E.L.T. 120 (Mad.)] (v)     P.V. Ramana Murthy Son v. CC, Cochin [2006 (205) E.L.T. 861 (Tri.- Bang.)] (vi)   Balu India v. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva [2006 (205) E.L.T. 863 (Tri.-Mumbai)] She relies on more specifically on decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai v. Ganesh Shipping Agency [2009 (245) E.L.T. 120 (Mad.)] and submits that in the absence of any contemplation of enquiry or pending enquiry, the suspension order cannot be passed. 4. The learned SDR, on the other hand, draws my attention to the sequence of the events She submits that the goods were seized for mis-declaration. She submits that three statements wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... perused the case records. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam was correct in suspending the CHA licence of the appellant herein under the provisions of Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004. 6. I find that the Commissioner while suspending the CHA licence has recorded the following findings :- "The complicity of Shri Sarvesh Pratap Singh, the proprietor of M/s. Blue Ocean Logistics Pvt Ltd. and M/s. Bholu Kumar Parmar in the attempted export of Potassium Chloride (Muriate of Potash) case under the guise of Industrial Salt has therefore been proved. On perusal of the information received from Docks Intelligence Unit of Customs House, Chennai vide their letter F. No. O.S. No.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s juncture, the learned SDR submits that the information received from the Docks Intelligence Unit, Customs House, Chennai regarding failure on the part of the CHA to comply with the provisions of CHALR, 2004 and misdeclaration of goods is enough for suspension of the licence. I find that charge of failure on the part of the CHA has not been recorded in the said order. In the absence of any such indication in the order, it cannot be held that there was a contemplation of action against the CHA under the provisions of CHALR, 2004. I find that the learned Counsel has correctly relied upon the various judgments. The only judgment which clearly and directly applies to this case is Ganesh Shipping Agency case (supra) wherein their Lordship clear....