SMITA INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the impugned order the Commissioner of Customs has suspended the CHA licence granted to the appellants herein on the ground that their activities of subletting their CHA licence which resulted in attempted export of Red Sanders/Sandal Wood Logs mis -declared as Metal Lamp Stands was detrimental to the national interest and that immediate action of suspension was necessary.

(2.) WE have heard both sides. We find force in the appellants' submission that statements relied upon against them were recorded under the provisions of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, which cannot be relied upon in proceedings under the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations 2004, in the light of the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in Thakkar Shipping Agency v. CCE, Bombay wherein it has been held that statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 cannot be used as evidence under CHALR and that recording of evidence and offering the persons for cross examination is mandatory under Clause 3 and 4 of the Regulation 23 of the CHALR 1984 (the relevant provision is Regulation 22 of 2004 which is reproduced herein below and pari materia with the earlier Regulation 23 of the CHALR 1984 Regulations:)

(3.) IN the Thakkar Shipping Agency case, the Tribunal set aside the revocation of the appellants' CHA Licence and allowed the appeal. The above decision has been followed in the case of Extin Shipping I (India) Ltd. Order No. A -191/WZB/2005/C.I dtd 28.9.2005 and in J.B. Udani Co. v. CC (Gen.), Mumbai Order No. A/1114/WZB/2006 dtd. 12.9.06 in the context of the 2004 Regulations. The plea of the ld. SDR that these decisions which were rendered in the context of revocation of licence and cannot be made applicable to cases of suspension like the present one, is not tenable for the reason that Regulation 22 prescribes procedure both for suspension and revocation of CHA Licence.