9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RPORT/ADMN/10/2016 dated 16.05.2016 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs(Airport & Administration), Customs House, Kolkata from F.No.S-45-99/1978 Estt, as Adjudicating authority. Under this Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2016 Adjudicating authority has confirmed the suspension of CHA licence No.C-34 of the appellant, earlier suspended by Order dated 22.04.2016, under Regulation 19(2) of Customs Brokers Licencing Regulation, 2013. 2. Shri S.K.Mehta (Advocate) appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that early hearing of the appeal may be allowed as the livelihood of the appellant and his 10 other staff members is hit by the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. Learned Advocate submitted that the said CHA licence number ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.KOL/CUS/AIRPORT/ADMN/4/2011 dated 02.08.2011 issued on 04.08.2011. That on an appeal CESTAT, Kolkata vide Order dated 21.09.2011 set aside the suspension order dated 02.08.2011 and also ordered for de-novo proceedings which included a clause on continuation of suspension for 30 days from the date of the order. 2.1 That CC(Kolkata) did not pass any order within 30 days and no application for extension of time was filed by the department with CESTAT. That appellant vide WP No.990/2011 approached Calcutta High Court to get order of the CESTAT implemented. That by an order dated 02.12.2011 appellant was allowed to continue to work as a CHA. That the entire proceedings under CHALR, 2004 also became time barred under Regulation 20 & 22 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gued that as per the provisions of Section 159 of the Customs Act, 1962; read with the preamble of CBLR, 2013; any action for the cause of action before 21.06.2013 could have been taken under CHALR, 2004. That such suspension already done under CHALR, 2004 was set aside by Hon ble Calcutta High Court and the appellant has continued to work from 2011 till April, 2011. That no suspension/continuation of suspension for the acts done in 2011 without appellant s knowledge, can be taken under CBLR, 2013. That no specific offence report has been received by the Adjudicating authority and no show cause notice has been issued for revocation of appellant s licence within 90 days, as per Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR, 2013. That even if CBLR, 2013 are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ginal dated 16.05.2016 passed by the Adjudicating authority. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. After allowing Miscellaneous Application (EH) filed by the appellant, appeal is taken up for disposal. The issue involved in the present proceedings is whether confirmation of suspension order under Order-in-Original dated 16.05.2016 is justified as per the provisions of Regulation 19(2) of CBLR, 2013. It is the case of the appellant that the cause of action is for the period prior to CBLR, 2013 and as per the preamble to CBLR, 2013, no action can be taken under CBLR, 2013 for which action could have been taken under CHALR, 2004. It is the argument of the appellant that 10 Bills of Entry; for which Order-in-Original dated 23.03.20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescinded; (e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, liability, penalty, forfeiture or punishment as aforesaid, and any such investigation, legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the rule, regulation, notification or order, as the case may be, had not been amended, repealed, superseded or rescinded.] " Preamble to CBLR, 2013 is as follows:- "In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 146 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in supersession of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004, except as respect things done or omitted to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g before Calcutta High Court. It is not coming out of the records before this Bench as to what was the final outcome of show cause notice dated 08.06.2012 issued to the appellant for revocation of their CHA licence No.C-34 for which WP No.571/2002 was filed by the appellant. 4.2 It is also the case of the appellant that even if CBLR, 2013 are held to be applicable then also no show cause notice for revocation of their CHA licence has been issued to them within 90 days from the receipt of Order-in-Original dated 23.03.2016 passed by CC(ACC), Mumbai which was received by the Adjudicating authority on 08.04.2016 and that for continued suspension after 90 days confirmation of suspension ordered is not justified. Learned Advocate for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
