SAI SHIPPING AGENCIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two appeals and two miscellaneous applications before us. Appeal No. C/234/2004 is against an order dated 22.3.2004 of the Commissioner of Customs suspending the appellant's CHA licence. There is a delay of six days in the filing of this appeal, which we condone after hearing both sides. Appeal No. C/235/2004 challenges a subsequent order dated 23.4.2004 passed by the Commissioner confirming his earlier order of suspension of CHA licence. One of the miscellaneous applications is for early disposal of the appeals and two other applications are for stay of operation of the aforesaid orders. After examining the records and hearing both sides, we allow the "early hearing application" and take up the appeals for final disposal. As we are disposing of the appeals finally at this stage, the stay applications are infructuous.

(2.) The aforesaid orders of the Commissioner have been passed under Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations 1984. The suspension of licence is based on a finding that the CHA violated various provisions of Regulation No. 14. This finding is based on the following facts: The appellants had filed a Bill of Entry with the proper officer of Customs on 8.1.2004 in respect of certain machinery imported by M/s. Prabhu Engineering, Chennai. The Bill of Entry was signed by one Shri V. Nani Rao, authorised representative of the CHA. On 9.1.2004, the importer filed an application through their CHA (appellants) for cancellation of the above Bill of Entry. This application was allowed by the proper officer of Customs on the same day. On 10.1.2004, the importer through the same CHA filed a fresh Bill of Entry in respect of the same goods. That Bill of Entry was also signed by the aforenamed person, Shri Nani Rao. Meanwhile, there was a change of rate of duty of customs on the goods. The rate of duty on 10.1.2004 was lesser than the rate applicable to the goods as on 8.1.2004 by virtue of a Notification which came to be issued in between. However, the duty at the higher rate was paid by the importer later on. Notwithstanding this fact, the department suspected fraud on the part of the CHA. A question was raised in the departmental circles as to why the earlier Bill of Entry was cancelled. Inquiries were made which ultimately resulted in the suspension of the appellants' CHA licence and the subsequent confirmation of the suspension.

(3.) Heard both sides. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submits that nothing illegal was done by the appellants in relation to the clearance of the subject goods. The Bill of Entry was filed in accordance with law that was cancelled in accordance with law and a fresh Bill of Entry was subsequently filed, which was also in accordance with law. Ld. Counsel further points out that the finding of violation of Regulation No. 14 is not well -founded inasmuch as the impugned orders have not found any illegality or irregularity in relation to clearance of the subject goods. Ld. DR opposes these arguments on the strength of the findings recorded by the Commissioner.