JOVEENS EXPOTEX Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two applications before us, one seeking stay of operation of the Commissioner's order and the other for the early disposal of the first application. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we allow the early -hearing application and take up the stay application for disposal.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant (CHA) submits that, by the impugned order, the Commissioner has done injustice to the CHA by continuing the suspension of their licence till 31.10.2006 without any valid reason. It is submitted that the suspension of licence was ordered under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licence Regulations, 2004, in the wake of launch of investigations by the CBI into certain exports made by some of the erstwhile clients of the CHA in August, 2003. It is submitted that the said investigations were occasioned by a belated discovery of non -realisation of export proceeds. The exports were otherwise complete and the CHA's role was over. The drawback claims filed by the exporters were also allowed by the department and the CHA had nothing to do with such claims. In connection with the detection of non -realisation of export proceeds, the first statement of the CHA was recorded as early as on 04.02.2004. The CHA licence was renewed for a further period of 10 years on 07.07.2005, no misconduct having been found against them. Even thereafter, no prime facie case for suspension or revocation of licence was found against them and, therefore, no show -cause notice was issued under Regulation 20/21 of the CHALR, 2004. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that there was need to suspend the licence immediately. Learned Counsel has relied on decisions of High Courts and this Tribunal vide infra:

(3.) AFTER considering the submissions, we turn back to Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004, which reads as under: