RAJEEV MAYER Vs. COMMR. OF CUS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPEAL No. C/57236/2013 was filed by the appellant on 6 -5 -2013 against the order dated 30 -1 -2013 suspending his CHA licence under the Regulation 20(2) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "CHALR, 2004"). That order was passed basing on an information received from Commissioner (ICD), Tughlakabad on 11 -1 -2013. But such fact was not disclosed in the suspension order. CHA licence of the appellant was suspended considering his action detrimental to the interests of customs due to his involvement in the clearance of Bill of Entry No. 8685164, dated 6 -12 -2012 importing fire crackers (fire works) of different types, which according to customs was restricted goods under Exim Policy 2009 -14. Such goods were concealed behind declared goods. When statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, he admitted to be CHA for the import and operating under the name and stale of M/s. Rajeev Mayer. But pleaded his ignorance about the concealment of the goods covered by the aforesaid Bill of Entry relating to M/s. Mayo Trading Co. Statement of Shri Anil Khandari brought out that this appellant had only given the user name and password of ICEGATE to occasion the import against some consideration. Involvement of other persons in respect of the import also came to record. Ld. authority was of the opinion that there was breach of duty by the appellant and the goods imported being restricted one as well as liable to confiscation, immediate suspension of his CHA licence was desirable to prevent his entry into customs area.

(2.) IN the present appeals jurisdiction of the Tribunal is confined to the outcome of the proceedings under Regulation 20(2) and 20(3) of CHLAR, 2004, without touching the merits of the case under Regulation 22 which is pending adjudication. Any opinion by Tribunal at this stage shall be premature and may make the appellant fate accompli.

(3.) ACCORDING to the scheme of CHALR, 2004, the order under Regulation 20(2) is crucial to provide the basis for initiation of the proceeding under Regulation 20(3) of the said Regulations either to make the temporary order of suspension absolute or revoke the same within the limitation prescribed by that regulation. The limitation for the purpose of initiation of the proceeding under the Regulation 20(3) begins from the date of suspension and ends on fifteenth day of final hearing.