A.S. GOPINATH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a CHA Agent who has been placed under suspension after six months of the cause of action. The appellant himself had informed to the Department about the mistake committed by his documentation clerk in the shipping bills. His case is that there was no intention to commit any fraudulent act and there was no cause for putting him under suspension by Show Cause Notice dated 19 -11 -2000. It is his complaint that till date, the Commissioner has not completed the enquiry as required in terms of the provisions of CHAL Regulation.

(2.) THE learned Counsel submits that when the action taken for suspension is not immediate and that the Commissioner has also not proceeded to complete the enquiry, then in such a circumstance, the suspension order is required to be set aside. He refers to this Benchs order in V.K. Singh v. CC, Hyderabad -2004 (164) E.L.T. 108 (Tri. -Bang.) wherein, following the ratio of earlier orders of the Tribunal in the case of Freightwings and Travels Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2001 (129) E.L.T. 226 and that of Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of N.C. Singha and Sons v. UOI - 1998 (104) E.L.T. 11 (Cal.), the suspension order had been set aside. He refers to the Madras High Court judgment rendered in the case of East West Freight Carriers (P) Ltd. v. CC, Madras - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 79 (Mad.) which lays down that suspension of licence is not sustainable unless order indicates application of mind by Collector to the aspect whether immediate action was necessary pursuant to contravention by clearing agent. He has also relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Setwin Shipping Agency v. CC, Mumbai - 2004 (165) E.L.T. 244 (Tri. - Mumbai).

(3.) THE learned SDR submits that this Bench has upheld the suspension in the case of Shri N. Kunjan Pillai v. CC, Cochin by Final Order No. 1042/2005, dated 27 -6 -2005 and directed the Commissioner to complete the proceedings within four weeks failing which the suspension order is deemed to have been set aside. He submits that a similar order be given in this case also.