TMI Blog2011 (9) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri K.K. Jaiswal, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Mathew John, Member (T)]. The appellant is a Customs House Agent duly licensed under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 ( CHALR, 2004 for short). Revenue detected a few cases of import of goods which caused loss of revenue to the Government in which the appellant was found to have played a role. So the license granted to the appellant was suspended by an order dated 31-3-2010 issued under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004. After the suspension, the appellant was given a post decision hearing to explain his case. This hearing was on 4-5-2010. Subsequently, after four months an order was issued on 7-9-2010 confirming the suspension of the license. The appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant that such an approach of the department to the appellant shows a prejudiced approach to cause him hardship even in the absence of any evidence against the appellant. 4. The appellant submits that CBEC issued guidelines vide Circular No. 9/2010, dated 8-4-2010 regarding the time frame to be followed in the matter of suspension of license of a Customs House Agent and for further proceedings in the matter. It is true that these guidelines were not in existence when the license of the appellant was suspended and the guidelines came into existence later. Even after noting the guidelines framed by the Board, the personal hearing was given on 4-5-2010 and order confirming the suspension of the license was issued on 7-9-2010 with the delay of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms House Agent but is something more serious. The appellant has been helping behind the scene in smuggling and such persons cannot be trusted to be a Customs House Agent. Restoring his license will be at great risk to the interest of the department. The learned DR also submits that the words offence report used in the amendment carried out recently in Regulation 22 has to be understood to mean the final report disclosing evidences against the appellant. He submits that in the present case show cause notice would have been issued during the time frame prescribed in the amended Regulation considering the receipt of investigation report. There is also the issue that the regulation was amended only on 8-4-2011 and the new limitation of 90 d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The evidence against the appellant is not based on documents. It is based on statement of the co-accused and the statement of the appellant about his awareness about intentions of another person. So this matter needs to be tested in a regular adjudication proceeding. In the meanwhile his license has been suspended. Such suspension is normally done to ensure that he does not misuse his position as CHA, having access to Customs area to destroy evidence if any, and also to be on guard about his actual involvement that may be unearthed during investigation. Now that a show cause notice has been issued, the said reasons no longer exist. We also take note of the delay in complying with time frame prescribed by CBEC in Circular No. 9/2010 dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
