EASTERN MARITIME P. LTD. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal the Customs House Agent has challenged the order of suspension of operation of Customs House Agents Licence under the provisions of Regulator 21(2) of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. The ground made out by the appellant is that there was no ground to place the appellant under suspension for taking any immediate action. It is submitted that the offence is in the nature of minor one which does not come within the ambit of Reg. 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984. It is submitted that the Reg. 23 lays down the procedure of issue of show cause notice and calling for explanation before proceeding to suspend the Customs House Agent Licence. It is stated that the offence is that the appellant has alleged to being allowed a person by name Naveen who is not their employee to file the documents for clearance purposes, it is stated that the appellant did not indulge in any offence of serious nature or of a grave lapse of diversion or misuse of funds, forgery or any prohibited goods in violation of the procedure calling for a stern action to put the appellant under suspension with immediate effect. It is stated that such an action of placing the appellant under suspension by resorting to Regulation 21(2) has caused serious hardship to the appellant and it is violative of principles of natural justice. It is stated that Regulation 23 ought to have been first resorted to and only in the rarest case 21(2) is required to be invoked, that is, in appropriate cases where immediate action is necessary and where an enquiry on such agent is pending or contemplated. Although the impugned order does narrate the facts and circumstances of one Naveen having been entrusted with papers for the purpose of clearing the goods but that does not call for such a severe action of suspending the licence. Furthermore, the agent has already executed a bank guarantee of Rs. 2 lakhs and has deposited an amount of Rs. 50,000 as security. Therefore, in the light of the Calcutta High Court judgment rendered in the case of N.C. Singha v. UOI and that of Madras High Court rendered in the case of East West Freight Carriers (P) Ltd. v. CC, Chennai which have been followed in the case of Ms. Hexagon Shipping Services v. CC, Chennai by this Bench by Final Order No. 591/2002 dated 21.5.2002, the impugned order is required to be set aside and appeal to be allowed.

(2.) LD . SDR reiterated the departmental contention and justified the action taken on the basis of the reasons given by the Commissioner in the impugned Order.

(3.) WE have carefully considered the submissions and have noted the judgments referred to by the Ld. Counsel. The finding recorded by this Bench in the case of M/s. Hexagon Shipping Services v. CC, Chennai in Final Order No. 591/2002 dated 21.5.2002 in para 7 to 9 are reproduced: