FAST TRACK INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard both sides on the application for stay of operation of the order of continuance of suspension of the CHA licence of the applicants herein.

(2.) VIDE order dated 10 -12 -2009, the licence of the CHA was suspended in exercise of powers conferred under the provisions of Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 as it appeared that the CHA who had filed bills of entry for import by M/s. Rudhrag Bioticks, Chennai had (i) not obtained any authorisation from the importer to whom the import was facilitated; (ii) not verified the antecedents, credentials of the importer; (iii) not personally interacted with the importer nor obtained any details of the goods being imported under the CHA's facilitation and (iv) not attended the import facilitation either personally or thorough their authorised employees, which appeared to be in violation of the various regulations of the CHALR, 2004. On the same date, the CHA was called upon to sent its written representation against the licence suspension; on 11 -12 -2009, the CHA filed its representation denying all the allegations of violations of any of the CHA Licensing Regulations, stating that the importers had submitted a letter on 23 -10 -2009 confirming that they had appointed the Appellants as their CHA for all their clearances, submitting that they had verified the correctness of the particulars mentioned in the shipping documents and bill of entry and on the basis of such verification the goods were permitted to be cleared by the Customs, stating that the CHA brought the importer and presented him to the Customs when the SIIB sought details of the importers and stating that the import facilitation was done by the CHA. On 18 -2 -2010, the impugned order of continuance of suspension was passed on the ground that the CHA had filed bills of entry for clearance of 'pesticides' [CTH 38] under the guise of 'organic chemicals' [CTH 29] in spite of having filed bill of entry for the same goods classifying them as 'pesticides' under Chapter 38 in the case of import by M/s. Agrico Organics Ltd. Hence this appeal.

(3.) THE applicants have, therefore, made out a strong prima facie case for stay and accordingly we grant the prayer for stay of operation of the impugned order.