ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. The appellants by this application have sought early hearing of the appeal. With the consent of both the sides, we allow the application and take up the appeal itself, for final disposal.
2. In the present appeal which has been filed by the appellants, who are a CHA, the validity of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, had been challenged. The Counsel has contended that the impugned order has been passed without holding proper inquiry against the appellants. The appellants according to the Counsel had only acted as a CHA for M/s. Rajeswari Exports Inc. and filed shipping documents. There is no material on the record to prima facie suggest the fraudulent involvement of the appellants in the consignment of the goods. The subsequent denial of the exporter of having not exported the consignment, could not be taken to be sufficient against the appellants for suspending their licence without completing the inquiry. The appellants according to the Counsel, are facing financial hardship on account of passing of the impugned order, as they have got no other source of income. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside.
3. On the other hand, JDR has contended that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner by exercising his powers under the provisions of Regulation 21(2) of CHALR, 1984 and as such the same is valid. The inquiry according to the JDR is still pending and going on against the appellant and the others concerned in the shipment of the consignment in question.
4. We have heard both the sides and gone through the records. From the record it is evident that the appellants as CHA filed 2 shipping bills both dated 23-4-2003 on behalf of M/s. Rajeswari Exports Inc. and in those bills the goods to be exported declared were popcorn maize. The goods after due examination as per the allegations of the appellants were sealed in a container by the Customs officers; and it is only after over one week of the shipment, the consignment, was called back from Singapore. On re-examination, the goods, were allegedly found to be red sender wood logs instead of popcorn maize. The exporter had disowned their concern with the consignment altogether, when they were questioned by the Customs officers after re-examination of the goods. However, the stand taken by the appellants is that Mr. Natarajan and Mr. Baskar, approached them for the export of popcorn maize and on the basis of documents supplied by them the shipping bills were filed by them.
5. We also find that still the inquiry is pending in respect of the disputed consignment and how much time is likely to be taken in the completion of inquiry is not known to the ld. JDR. We wonder how initially the consignment was shipped as of popcorn maize after due verification and examination of the goods, by the Customs officers. The tampering of the goods in transit is also so far a mystery which is yet to be solved by the Customs authorities. There is nothing on record to suggest if any action so far has been taken against other persons/officials involved in the episode. It appears that the Commissioner has taken the action against the appellants only by finding them an easy catch. On inquiry, if it is found that the goods were tampered in transit, we fear how the appellants as CHA would be responsible for that. However if on inquiry, if it is found that this mischief was committed at the time of shipment, then other concerned Customs officials must also come in the net. Although a period of 2 months had passed from the date of passing of the impugned order under which the appellants had been rendered jobless/workless, preliminary inquiry has not been completed and no quick action has been taken against the others involvement in the alleged fraud. The completion of preliminary inquiry is likely to take sufficient time. Therefore, keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the provisions of Sub-rule (2) of Regulation 21 of CHALR, should not have been invoked, especially when it was not crystal clear, as to who was actually responsible for this fraud. The Commissioner of Customs should have taken action against the appellants only after the preliminary inquiry under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 21 of the CHA Rules. Therefore, we are not able to sustain the impugned order of the Commissioner of Customs and accordingly set aside the same. But the Commissioner of Customs will be at liberty to pass appropriate order afresh on completion of the inquiry and after giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellants, at any time. The appeal of the appellants accordingly stands allowed.