S.S.V. BHADRA SHIPPING AGENCIES Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from order of Suspension No. R. 678/CHA dt. 18.9.2003 in terms of Sub -regulation (a), (b) and (1) of Regulations 14 and 20(7) of CHALR, 1984. Shri S.V. Dhanraj, partner of the appellants in this statement dated 21.8.03, inter alia, stated that his firm had signed blank annexure to M/s. Esteem Shipping Agencies for generating the Bills of Entry for a monetary consideration of Rs. 17,000 per month, that he did not know the importers to whom these blank signed annexures were used and they were not keeping any track of the imports made by M/s. Esteem Shipping Agencies by using their CHA Licence; that all the work such as documentation, customs clearance were done by M/s, Esteem Shipping Agencies. He also stated that for facilitating of customs clearance, work, his firm and arranged Identity cards, i.e. Form G. Harbour Entry Photo Permit and Entry permit issued by Airport Authority of India to Shri Mazar Ahmed and Shri J. Dillibabu, partner of M/s. Easteem Shipping Agencies as Manager working in M/s. SSV Bhadra Shipping Agencies and admitted that the said two persons are not their employee. Further he stated that he had appointed Shri S.T. Natarajan as the Power of Attorney Holder to sign the annexures on behalf of M/s. S.S.V. Bhadra Shipping Agencies and he instructed that S.T. Natarajana to hand over the signed blank annexures for generating the Bill of Entry to M/s. Esteem Shipping Agencies. The statements were also recovered from SSV Bhadra Shipping Agencies. In view of these facts and also due to the fact that what was declared in the Shipping Bill of Entry was plastic cables of different types, Plastic connectors, cooling fans etc. indicating another brand name. However, Bill of Lading indicated that the goods were computer parts. In view of all these facts, it caused for immediate suspension by the Commissioner, which is under challenge.

(2.) WE have heard Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Ld. DR Shri A. Jayachandran for the Revenue. Ld. Counsel submits that the action taken in not "immediate" and he relied on the judgments rendered in the case of K.P.S. and Co. v. CC, 2001 (129; ELT 128 (T) wherein the suspension was set aside on the ground that the clerk of another CHA had signed the paper. He also relied on the judgment rendered in the case reported in 2003 (155) ELT 545 wherein the bench gave direction to the Commissioner in the light of the Larger Bench decision rendered in the case of Freightwings and Travels Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai, 2001 (75) ECC 323 (Tri -LB) : 2001 (129) ELT 226 (Tri -LB) that the Commissioner should expedite the hearing the complete it within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order failing which the impugned order stand set aside on expiry of the said period.

(3.) LD . DR for the Revenue submitted that the order of suspension was done immediately and it does not call for any intervention at this stage. He has no objection to expedite the hearing within two months in terms of the judgments referred to above. He distinguishes the judgments rendered in the case of K.P.S. and Co. (supra).