ORDER
K.S. Venkataramani, Member (T)
1. The appeal is directed against the Order dated 23-9-1997 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (G) Mumbai, by which the Commissioner has ordered suspension of the Custom House Agent Licence held by the appellant in exercise of powers conferred under Regulations 21(2) of the CHA Licensing Regulations, 1984. The Commissioner has made this order on basis of report that the appellant has sublet their CHA Licence to Shri Ganesh Shipping Agency. There was a statement of one Shri N.R. Sawant Proprietor of M/s. Shri Ganesh Shipping Agency stating that he is doing customs clearance through the appellant and that he then processes the documents through the Custom House through one Shri Ramdas K. Bhonsle, an employee of the appellant. The authorised signatory of the appellant Shri Mahendra Daftary stated that Sawant brought in some business for which he paid a 30% of profit to him. The Commissioner had found that the appellant had not produced the authorisation letters from the importer and the muster roll; accordingly he ordered suspension of the CHA Licence.
2. Shri S.V. Nadkarni the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that though the Commissioner has ordered suspension of the licence in September, 1997 till date even after the lapse of four months, no Show Cause Notice as envisaged under Regulation 23 has so far been issued. The appellant and his 22 employees are without work and have been subjected to hardship due to the suspension. The ld. Counsel also produced a letter dated 31-10-1996 addressed to them by one M/s. Adka Industrial Enterprises informing that they have engaged the services of M/s. Ganesh Shipping Agency to provide them comprehensive services in respect to their import consignments. They will act as a liasioning agency between work related to clearing of Import consignments. The ld. Counsel further referred to a bill of M/s. Ganesh Shipping Agency No. 53/96-97, dated 14-1-1997 prepared by them and presented to M/s. Adka Industrial Enterprises where they have charged separately for agency and attendance charges. The ld. Counsel pleaded that in view of the great hardship caused to the appellant and to his employees due to the suspension of the CHA licence, which is their livelihood, the order of suspension may be revoked.
3. Shri K.L. Ramteke the ld. JDR referred to the impugned order and contended that the Commissioner was justified to take immediate action to suspend the licence as the appellant had misused the CHA Licence by subletting it.
4. We have carefully considered the submissions. We find that the Commissioner’s order under Regulation 21(2) prima facie indicates that there was a material, to prima facie justify exercise of powers under Regulation 21(2) of the CHA Regulation as brought out in the order. However, we are inclined to consider favourably, the plea to end suspension due to the economic hardship, it has caused to the appellant and his employees. We also considered in this context that 4 months have passed, since the licence has been suspended which directly affected the livelihood of the appellant and the staff. We also take note of the fact that the appellant prima facie has produced before us certain documents such as the letter from M/s. Adka Industrial Enterprises letter dated 13-1-1996 referred to above which may be relevant when the regular proceedings under Regulation 23 come to be taken against him. But so far as the suspension of the licence is concerned, we are inclined to follow the Tribunal decision in the case of Syed Ahmed & Co. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi – 1996 (84) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal) and Tribunal decision in the case of Kothari & Sons v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai – 1997 (94) E.L.T. 219 (Tribunal) cited before us by ld. Counsel wherein the Tribunal took note of the loss of livelihood caused by suspension for long period of the CHA licence and directed that suspension be revoked. We, therefore direct the Commissioner to restore the CHA licence to the appellants after taking suitable safeguards as deemed necessary to facilitate proper investigation. It is made clear that this direction to set aside the suspension order is without prejudice to the right to the department to proceed in the matter in the light of the investigation under Regulation 23 of CHA Regulations. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.