2015 (11) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntal right to carry on his occupation and business, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution. 3. From the material on record and on the uncontested factual scenario, on 26.03.2012, a shipping bill was filed by one M/s. Akar Iron Creations Pvt. Ltd. declaring export cargo of purported 249 cartons of furniture, processed purportedly through the appellant as a Customs House Agent. On the basis of an intelligence received on 10.04.2012, that there was an attempt to export a consignment of Red Sanders Logs under the guise of export of furniture through the Mumbai Port to Dubai from ICD, TKD, New Delhi, the container in question was intercepted, seized and a letter addressed to the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi on 30.04.2012 intima....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....an order of confirmation of suspension was passed on 10.07.2012. In Customs Appeal No.3982 of 2012, the appellant assailed the order dated 10.07.2012 whereby suspension of his license was confirmed under Regulation 20(3) of CHALR, 2004. By the judgement dated 3.7.2014, this Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 10.07.2012 confirming the appellants suspension until conclusion of proceedings under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004. 6. It is pleaded in this appeal and the appellant reiterates the assertion in oral argument that despite confirmation of his licence suspension having been invalidated by this Tribunal, the appellant was not allowed to function as CHA. This plea categorically pleaded by the appellant is not de....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for personal hearing. For what reason the appellant was being called for a personal hearing was neither intimated to the appellant nor is apparent even today. 10. Responding to the call for a personal hearing, the appellant submitted a detailed written reply on 20.11.2014 wherein he adopted and summarized the analyses and conclusions in the inquiry report and requested restoration of his licence to carry on his business. 11. Thereafter the impugned order dated 5.12.2014 was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General). This order revoked appellants CHA licence and forfeited the entirety of his security deposit of Rs. 75,000/-, purportedly under Regulation 18 read with Regulation 20(7) of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulation , ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lowed. There is another fatal and fundamental infirmity in the impugned order. If the respondent intended to rely upon the statement of the CMC employee, Shri Rawat, a show cause notice should have explicitly intimated to the appellant about such a course of action intended. In the event, the appellant would have exercised his right to cross examine Shri Rawat, which is also a procedural right guaranteed, as integral to due process. Since the respondent did not consider it necessary to even issue a show cause notice proposing to disagree with the inquiry report, the appellant was deprived the opportunity to seek cross examination of Shri D.S. Rawat. 15. It is specifically alleged in the memorandum of appeal that despite this Tribunals o....