TMI Blog2006 (2) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of the CESTAT that in all cases of suspension the procedure under Regulation 22(1) ought to have been followed in the sense prior notice before suspension ought to be given cannot be sustained. A bare reading of Regulation 20(2) very clearly indicates that where immediate action is necessary the Commissioner of Customs has been granted such a power to suspend such licence where an enquiry against such agent is pending or even contemplated. Accordingly we answer the aforesaid question of law to the effect that it is not mandatory that in all cases of suspension, Regulation 22(1) ought to be followed. Whereas in cases where immediate action is necessary the Commissioner of Customs is fully empowered to suspend the licence where an enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of Regulation 22(1) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 ought to have been followed. 2. To appreciate the above contention it would be necessary to note the provisions of Regulations 20(1) and 20(2) and Regulation 22(1), which are as follows :- Regulation 20. Suspension or revocation of licence. (1) The Commissioner of Customs may, subject to the provisions of Regulation 22, revoke the licence of a Customs House Agent and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security, or only order forfeiture of part or whole of security, on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) Failure of the Customs House Agent to comply with any of the conditions of the bond executed by him under Regulation 10; (b) Failure of the Customs H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gulations had suspended the licence of Respondent-Clearing Agency. We have also perused the Vigilance Report prepared by the Additional Director General, Directorate General of Vigilance, Customs and Central Excise, West Zonal Unit, Mumbai, dated 28th October, 2005. The said report clearly indicates that during the surprise check by the officers of Directorate General of vigilance, Mr. Manoj Govindji Mota, one of the employee of the Respondent-Clearing Agency was found making entries in the journals maintained by the Appraiser at the Appraising Hall of the Jawahar Customs House, Nhava-Sheva on 26th October, 2005. The said employee Mr. Manoj G. Mota had stated to the said Vigilance Committee that he was making entries in the registers and no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Vivek Dwivedi has been suspended and none of the other Appraisers have been suspended till date. It is rather strange as to why the Customs Department has still not proceeded against the other Appraisers though the report of Vigilance Committee has stated that the other Appraisers were also adopting similar modus operandi. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it was a case for invoking Regulation 20(2) of the said Regulations which is meant only in cases where immediate action is necessary. In such a case even without giving notice the licence could be suspended. We make it clear that the observations of the CESTAT that in all cases of suspension the procedure under Regulation 22(1) ought to have been followed in the sense ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
