POONAM CARGO SERVICES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR reasons recorded below, we stay the operation of the impugned order of suspension of CHA licence and proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.

(2.) VIDE impugned order dated 30 -3 -1999, the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi has held as under :

(3.) PROVISIONS of Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR, 1984 are attracted in situations where immediate action is necessary. In the present case, the Commissioner or Customs had passed an order of suspension on 31 -8 -1998 which was set aside by Tribunal's Final Order No. A/1039/98 -NB, dated 14 -12 -1998 on the ground that the suspension order does not disclose that the matter was so urgent as to warrant action under Regulation 21(2). Even now, we are of the same view, as the order does not disclose any necessity for immediate action -the Bills of Entry on which the appellant is alleged to have misdeclared and misclassified the goods are of July and August, 1998. Even in December, 1998, the Bench was not satisfied that necessity of immediate action was disclosed in the suspension order dated 31 -8 -1998. The present order does not also disclose any necessity for immediate action. The Commissioner has only spelt out only one ground - that the applicants may indulge in activities again resulting in loss of revenue; however, no reasons have been furnished for arriving at this conclusion. It also appears from the records that no proceedings have been initiated under Regulation 23 of the CHALR, 1984 in spite of passage of considerable length or time, which itself would show that there is no great urgency in the matter. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of East West Freight Carriers reported in 1995 (77) E.L.T. 79 (Mad.) and the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of N.C. Singha and Sons v. Union of India reported in 1998 (104) E.L.T. 11 (Cal.) wherein the Court has held that an order of suspension of CHA licence is bad in law unless it indicates application of mind by the Commissioner to the aspect whether immediate action was necessary pursuant to contravention by the CHA, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. We, however, make it clear that this order does not preclude the Commissioner from exercising powers under Regulation 23 of the CHALR, 1984, in accordance with law. Order to be given dasti to both sides.