COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS GENERAL Vs. WORLDWIDE CARGO MOVERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Customs Appeal No.37 of 2006 is filed by the Commissioner of Customs (General). Respondent to this Appeal is Worldwide Cargo Movers, a Firm functioning as a Custom House Agent ("CHA" for short). This Firm has filed the connected Appeal No.39 of 2006. Union of India and the Commissioner of Customs (General) are the respondents to this Appeal. Both these Appeals are filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 ("the said Act" for short) against an order dated 4th April 2006 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai ("CESTAT" for short) in Appeal No.C-72 of 2006 which was filed by the said Firm. Since the order under challenge is one and the same, both the Appeals are heard and are being decided together. However, for the sake of convenience, the Commissioner of Customs (General) is hereinafter referred to as "the appellant" and the Firm as "the respondent".

(2.) Amongst others, we are concerned in these Appeals with the provisions of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 which are framed under Section 146(2) of the said Act. The respondent was holding the Custom House Agent licence bearing CHA licence No.11/430 issued under these regulations. The same was suspended by the appellant by order dated 2.11.2005 in view of serious allegations of misconduct against the Firm for the act of its employee one Rehman Iqbal Shaikh authorised under Regulation 8 of these regulations (referred as Regulation 8 employee). The allegations were arising out of two incidents viz. (i) mis-declaration of the value of a Volkswagen Car and deliberately giving wrong name of country of export and also of the importer to avoid the correct duty. This was in April 2005 at Air Cargo Complex at Sahar and (ii) the other incident was in May 2005. That was concerning the outright smuggling of a Mercedes Benz Car at JNPT Nhava Sheva.

(3.) The respondent herein challenged this suspension by filing Writ Petition No.7625 of 2005 which was dismissed by this Court by its order dated 17.11.2005. The main grievance of the respondent was that it was not afforded a hearing before the issuance of the suspension order. The suspension was defended on the ground that in view of the gravity of the allegations, an urgent action was justified on facts and in law. This Court recorded a statement on behalf of the appellant that in any case an enquiry will be conducted thereafter and the same will be completed within eight weeks. In view of this assurance of a post decisional hearing, the suspension was not interfered. The decision of this Court was challenged by filing a Special Leave Petition to the Apex Court. The Apex Court issued a notice but did not grant any stay. In the meanwhile, i.e. on 17.1.2006, after completing the enquiry, the CHA licence of the respondent came to be revoked. The whole of the security furnished by the CHA at the time of issuing the CHA licence was also directed to be forfeited. It is this order which was challenged by the respondent by filing an Appeal to the CESTAT under Section 129A of the said Act.