Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2013 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (10) TMI 1002 - CESTAT CHENNAISuspension of license of CHA - Contravention of Regulation 13 (a), (d) and (m) for CHALR - License suspended without any notice to Assessee - Held that:- Regulation 22(1) is applicable for issuing both suspension order and revocation order. However Regulation 20(2) authorizes the Commissioner of Customs to suspend the licence of a CHA in emergent situations without following the procedure under Regulation 22(1). It is very obvious that immediate suspension of license is permitted only when an enquiry is pending is contemplated. The non obstante clause Regulation 20(2) makes an exception only in the matter of suspension and not in the matter of revocation. So, it is implied that such inquiry has to be completed, within the time frame prescribed in various sub-regulations of Regulation 22 and a final view in the matter of revocation of license is to be taken. After two years from the date of suspension not even the show cause notice, is issued for initiation of enquiry which should have been followed in the case of an inquiry ‘pending or contemplated’ on passing of the suspension order dated 02.09.2011, as required under Regulation 22 (1). At this stage, we cannot accept that such a step is still being contemplated. No person’s right to carry on his profession can be stopped for a prolonged period through the means of a suspension order. Such an approach is against provisions in Regulations 20 and 22 of CHLAR. So we are of the view that the impugned order suspending the license of the appellant is no longer sustainable in view of the decision of Hon. Madras High Court in the case of CC Vs. Ganesh Shipping Agency [2008 (7) TMI 437 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] - Decided in favour of appellant.
|