TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and P. Karthikeyan, Member (T) S/Shri M.S. Kumaraswamy, Consultant and S. Krishnanandh , Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri M.K.A.K. Mohiddin, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)].- Appeal No. C/256/2008 is against an order of the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin suspending the operation of the permission given under Regulation 9(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 to the appellants. Appeal No. C/340/2008 by the CHA is against an order of the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai suspending the operation of the licence issued under Regulation 9(1) of CHALR, 2004. Both the impugned suspensions are under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004. The miscellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of the appellant-Company, wherein he admitted that his company was not aware of the identity of the exporter and that he had signed blank shipping bills and delivered the same to one Shri N.S. Jeyamanoharan of M/s. ARPNS Jeyamano Sons; Tuticorin against payment of total consideration of Rs. 75,000/-for a period of one year under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between them. On the basis of this evidence of the CHA, the DRI reported the case to the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin for necessary action and the latter issued order dated 23-5-2008, the operative part of which reads as under:- "Accordingly, in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions of Regulation 20(2) of Customs House Agent's Licensing Regulations, 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peration of the CHA licence itself on the same grounds, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Tuticorin) may be inconsequential. 3. The DRI had also intimated the results of their investigations at Tuticorin against the CHA, to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai and the latter also examined the matter and passed order dated 9-6-2008 suspending the operation of the CHA licence under Regulation 20(2) on the ground that the CHA committed breach of Regulation 13(a), (b), (d), (e) and (f). This order is under challenge in Appeal No. C/340/2008 filed by the CHA. This order states that "necessary inquiry proceedings under Section 22 of the CHALR, 2004 is contemplated and will be conducted in due course. The information received fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Excise, Coimbatore [2006 (203) E.L.T. 549 (Mad.)] and (ii) Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore v. Sindhu Cargo Service, Ltd. [2007 (219) E.L.T. 87 (Mad.)]. The learned JDR has also referred to the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Freightwings and Travels Ltd. v Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2001 (129) E.L.T. 226 (Tri.-LB)]. 5. We have given careful consideration to the submissions. Both the Commissioners have taken action against the appellants under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004. Regulation 20 provides for revocation of a CHA licence by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs subject to the provisions of Regulation 22. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20 enables the Commissioner, in appropriate cases where immedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hing contained in the statement recorded under Section 108 ibid can be used against the CHA inasmuch as Section 108 is not applicable to the procedure of enquiry laid down under Rule 22 as held by this Tribunal in Smitha International v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2008 (225) E.L.T. 439 (Tribunal) = 2008 (133) ECR 234 (Tri.-Mum.). This plea may be acceptable insofar as enquiry under Regulation 22 against the CHA is concerned. The question, however, is different in the instant case. It is whether, for an action under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 20, the Commissioner can rely on the oral evidence gathered by the investigating agency against the CHA under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Our considered answer to this question is i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operation of CHA licence is enquiry without delay. We are of the view that no time shall be lost by the Commissioner in instituting such enquiry against the appellants under Regulation 22. Any further delay in this matter will tend to vitiate the order of suspension already passed. In this view of the matter, we dispose of Appeal No. C/340/2008 by directing the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to initiate enquiry, if necessary, against the appellants under Regulation 22 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which his order of suspension of operation of the licence shall stand set aside. 8. We have rot agreed with the learned Consultant's submission that no post-decisional hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
