1998 (2) TMI 366 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of Custom House Agent (CHA) Licence under Regulation 21(2) of CHA Licensing Regulations 1984.
2. Delay in issuing Show Cause Notice under Regulation 23.
3. Economic hardship caused by the suspension of the licence.
4. Consideration of relevant documents and precedents in deciding the appeal.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the Order dated 23-9-1997, where the Commissioner of Customs suspended the CHA Licence of the appellant for allegedly subletting it to another entity, based on a report and statements. The Commissioner's order was made under Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations 1984, citing non-production of authorization letters and muster roll by the appellant. The suspension directly impacted the appellant's livelihood and employees.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that despite the suspension in September 1997, no Show Cause Notice as required by Regulation 23 had been issued even after four months. The appellant and employees suffered hardship due to the suspension. The counsel presented a letter from a company engaging the services of the entity accused of subletting, along with a bill showing separate charges for agency services, to support the plea for revocation of the suspension.

3. The JDR representing the respondents contended that the Commissioner's immediate suspension of the licence was justified due to the alleged misuse of the CHA Licence by subletting. However, the Tribunal considered the economic hardship faced by the appellant and employees due to the suspension. The Tribunal acknowledged the documents provided by the appellant, including the letter from the engaging company, and referred to precedents where long suspensions of CHA licences were revoked to prevent loss of livelihood.

4. After careful consideration, the Tribunal found prima facie justification for the Commissioner's order but decided in favor of revoking the suspension due to the economic hardship caused. Citing previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to restore the CHA licence to the appellant with necessary safeguards for investigation, without prejudicing further proceedings under Regulation 23. The appeal was disposed of with the direction to reinstate the licence, considering the impact on livelihood and following relevant precedents.