M.A.C. AIR (P) LTD Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are as follows as brought out in the impugned order:

(2.) LD . Advocate, Shri J.S. Agarwal for the appellants, submits that action under Regulation 21(2) of CHALR, 1984 is an extreme power with the customs authorities. The guidelines have been given in the said Sub -regulation (2) whereunder this power can be exercised by the competent authority, namely, the Commissioner of Customs. The guidelines is that where an "immediate action is necessary and an enquiry against such agents is pending and contemplated. The impugned order, he submits, does not stipulate that an immediate action is necessary against the appellant. Apart from that, he submits, the facts, as brought out in the impugned order, as mentioned above, do not call for immediate action by way of suspension of the licence. He submits that the irregularity was detected on 22.7.1998 on examination of the consignments under export. Yet the action has been taken only after 2 months by issuing the impugned order. In the meantime, statements, etc. had been recorded. It comes out from the impugned order itself that the person signing the Shipping bills was not authorised to sign. It is duly admitted by the Customs authorities. He, further, submits that it was for the Customs authorities also to verify that a duly authorised person signs the Shipping bills. If an employee of CHA, who is not authorised to sign the Shipping bills, signs, the irregularities should have been detected by the Customs authorities. He, further, submits that whether the appellants have committed the offence under the Customs Act has yet to be found out by the authorities below because the show cause notice under Section 111 and 112 of the Customs Act are still pending. A reply has already been submitted by the appellants. He, further, submits that no action has been taken under Regulation 23 by issuing a regular notice. As a result, the appellant has lost his livelihood. A proper show cause notice is required to be issued for revoking of the CHA licence under Regulations 23 and same has not been issued so far. In these circumstances, he submits that action taken by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi for suspending the licence under Regulations 21(2) is not called for and the impugned order should be set aside.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides.