ORDER
K.D. Mankar, Member (T)
1. This is an application by M/s. M.D. Sadrani, CHA no. 11/337 against the order of Commissioner of Customs, suspending the CHA licence of the appellant under Regulation 21/2 of the CHA Licensing Regulation 1984, (CHA Regulations) pending enquiry under Regulation 23 , ibid. The said order was passed without offering the opportunity of hearing to the appellants.
2. In the appeal, it has been claimed that this was not a fit case where immediate action was necessary pending an enquiry under the Regulations. The adjudication proceedings against the exporters are pending. The show cause was issued to the exporter as late as on 2.7.2003. The said show cause notice was issued by the Dy. Director DGCEI, Zonal Unit, Mumbai. The offence against the exporter is yet to be established. Hence the appellants claim that the ex parte order passed by the Commissioner suspending the licence in terms of Regulation 21 of the CHA Regulation are not sustainable.
3. The brief facts are enumerated as under. A letter dated 18.7.2003 received from the Addl. Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence enclosing therewith a copy of show cause notice cum Demand Notice dated 2.7.2003 and relied upon documents in case of evasion of Customs duties registered against M/s. Swami Fashions Pvt. Ltd. and M/s, Skyline Marketing both of Mumbai and role of the CHA no. 11/337, M/s. M.D. Sadrani, therein. As per the report of the Addl. Director General, DGCEI, Mumbai it has emerged that forged shipping bills were processed and issued by M/s. M.D. Sadrani, CHA No. 11/337.
4. Heard both sides. We note that while the Commissioner has power under the Regulation 21(2) of the Licensing Regulation 1984 to suspend licence pending enquiry, the continued suspension of the licence without even hearing the appellants cannot be justified. It has come on record that the allegations against the exporter, relating to violation of import and export provisions of Customs Act are yet to be established. The Customs authorities are empowered to suspend the licence after instituting due enquiry. Therefore we hold that continued suspension of the licence in terms of impugned order cannot be sustained.
5. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. We however make it clear that the department is at liberty to take appropriate action against the CHA licence in terms of regular enquiry as and when it is deemed necessary to conduct such an enquiry for any alleged misconduct of the CHA in terms of the CHA Regulations.
6. The appeal allowed as above.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)