ORDER
G.N. Srinivasan, Member (J)
1. This is an appeal filed against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (G) suspending the C.H.A. licence purportedly in terms of Regulation 2 of Regulation 21 of Custom House Licencing Regulation 1984 without any hearing.
2. The appellants are a firm of Custom House Agents holding regular licence No. 11/926. The firm is owned by one Ashok Jaiswar. It is stated to be carrying on business of CHA since 1989 and is stated to be attending to the clearance of import and export consignments. The volume of duty paid on the import consignments cleared by the appellants for the years 1997,1998 and 1999 respectively is to the tune of Rs. 13.65 crores; Rs. 19.93 crores and Rs. 17.60 crores. The appellant is having 22 employees working under him.
3. It is stated by the appellant that during the year November, 1996 to Feb. 1997, the appellant attended to clearance of export consignments made by M/s. Unique Impex, M/s. Global Art, M/s. Golden Exports, M/s. Seven Seas Exports and M/s. Sagar Trade Line. On the basis of certain information, the DRI commenced certain investigations in respect of the aforesaid exports. It is stated that certain violations of various provisions of Customs Act and Rules have been reportedly committed by the CHA. On the basis of the said investigation, on 26-10-98, show cause notice was issued to the appellant. This notice was in respect of exports made by M/s. Unique Impex and M/s. Global Art. On 21-1-99, the appellant replied to the said show cause notice. It is still pending adjudication. Another show cause notice dated 17-3-99 was issued by the Commissioner in respect of exports made by M/s. Golden Exports, Seven Seas Exports and Sagar Trade Line. This notice is also still pending adjudication. When these matters are pending, on 12-11-99, the Commissioner of Customs (G) suspended the appellant’s licence under Regulation 21(2) of the Custom House Licencing Regulations. On representations made by the appellant sometime on 23-11-99, on 11-2-2000 it was revoked. Yet on 22-2-2000 the impugned order has been passed.
4. Shri J.C. Patel, Advocate appeared for the appellant and Shri Deepak Kumar appeared for the Revenue.
5. Shri J.C. Patel on behalf of the appellant argues that the invokation of the exceptional power enshrined under Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Regulations for the exercise of that power only if ‘immediate’ action is necessary. In this case, even if the violations are established sometime in 1996-97, the word ‘immediate’ as enshrined in Regulation 21(2) has to be given certain meaning. Shri Patel also invited our attention to the provisions of Regulation 23 of the CHA Regulations. He states that the action can be taken against the CHA only after due enquiry. Here admittedly, no such action has been undertaken against the CHA. Hence the order is ex facie wrong.
6. Shri Deepak Kumar adopted the reasonings in the impugned order.
7. We have considered the rival submissions. We are of the view that the appellant have made out a case. It is rightly contended by Shri Patel that if the violations had occured sometime in 1996-97 for which two show cause notices are given and are pending adjudication and the authority invoking the provisions of exceptional powers provided under Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Regulations, the word “immediate” has to be given certain meaning. We are aware of the fact about the important role played by the CHA in the working of the Custom House. The CHA has 22 employees. If the suspension is to be made, the authority should take immediate action of enquiry. In this case, admittedly, no such enquiry has been undertaken. Hence, in our view, in this case, the exercise of power under Regulation 21(2) has been wrongly exercised. We are, therefore, of the view that the impugned order is vitiated in law. Hence, it is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
8. The application for stay is also disposed of.