KUNAL TRAVELS (CARGO) Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by M/s. Kunal Travels (Cargo), against order dated 20 -9 -2004 by which the Commissioner of Customs has suspended their Customs House Agent License under Regulation 20 (2) of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004.

(2.) Shri Bipin Garg, learned Advocate, submitted that the license has been suspended only with the observation that the enquiry is contemplated against them in relation to their involvement in a drawback fraud case wherein they have failed to discharge the obligation entrusted upon them by the Licensing Regulations; that the Commissioner has not specified as to which obligation they failed to discharge; that no details of the drawback case have been mentioned in the impugned Order in absence of which the appellants are not in a position to represent their case also. He further, mentioned that the appellants have made an enquiry from the Customs Department about the reasons for suspending the license; that they came to know that the license has been suspended on account of his two shipping bills dated 17 -6 -2003 against which a case was booked on the ground of over invoicing and shortage of quantity; that if the shipping bills involved are of 2003, there was no immediate action required to suspend the license; that as per the Regulation 20 (2), the Commissioner may in an appropriate case where immediate action is necessary, suspend the licence of CHA where an enquiry is pending against him; that in absence of any details, furnished in the suspension Order, it is non -speaking and illegal. He relied upon the decision in the case of D.H. Patkar & Co. v. C.C. (G), Mumbai, 1999 (111) E.L.T. 631 (T) wherein it has been held that power of suspension is to be exercised only if immediate action is called for and serious consequences are likely to follow in case licence is not suspended. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of Kothari and Sons v. C.C., Jaipur, 2000 (122) E.L.T. 828 (T) wherein it has been held that the order of suspension must indicate that the Commissioner has formed an opinion that immediate action was necessary to suspend the CHA licence pending enquiry; that the Tribunal has set aside the suspension as the impugned Order neither disclosed nor did it mention the matter in respect of which an enquiry is pending or contemplated. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in the case of M.D. Sadrani v. C.C. (General), Mumbai, 2004 (167) E.L.T. 84 (T) wherein it has been held by the Tribtmal that continued suspension of the licence without hearing the appellants cannot be justified.

(3.) Countering the arguments, Sh. S. M. Tata, learned SDR, submitted that the impugned Order clearly mentions that an enquiry is contemplated against the appellants under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 in relation to their involvement in a drawback fraud case wherein they failed to discharge the obligations under the CHA Regulations; that as the matter is being investigated, the details have not been mentioned in the order, which is valid under the provisions of Regulations.