R.K. AHUJA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (GENERAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the appellants against the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs passed under Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR, 1984. The learned Counsel has contended that the suspension of the appellant's CHA Licence could not be ordered without holding an enquiry into the matter and as such the order is illegal. He has also contended that even during the pendency of the enquiry, if any to be conducted, he should be allowed to work and his suspension of Licence should be revoked. He has placed reliance in the ratio of law laid down in Freightwings and Travels Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2001 (129) E.L.T. 226]. On the other hand, learned JDR has only reiterated the correctness of the impugned order.

(2.) WE have heard both sides and gone through the record. The bare perusal of the Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR shows that the Commissioner of Customs has power to suspend the Licence of the CHA by dispensing with any enquiry, in an appropriate case where immediate action is required. In the instant case, this power has been exercised by the Commissioner of Customs keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations levelled against the CHA and his conduct, as he had been found indulging in helping the fictitious exporters to export the goods. Therefore, the impugned order passed by him cannot be said to be unjustified or contrary to the regulations.

(3.) THE ratio of law laid down by the Larger Bench in the above referred case is not of much help to the appellants in the instant case. In that case it has been observed that under Regulation 21(2), the authority had been entrusted with the power to order suspension of a CHA. This proposition is not in dispute in the present case. The Commissioner has been vested with the power under Regulation 21(2) to immediately order the suspension of a CHA licence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view the Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations and the conduct of the CHA. Therefore, the impugned order passed by him is upheld.