ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The appellant is a CHA working as such in Mumbai Customs House. His licence to operate as CHA was suspended by the Commissioner of Customs (General), under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 for various acts of omission and commission narrated in the impugned order. The Commissioner while suspending the licence holds that the appellant allowed the work done by two persons who were not CHA’s employees but are freelancers paying commission to the CHA for the use of the licence. It appears that this contention of the Commissioner is not born out by evidence. The two persons who were acting on behalf of the CHA were the employees of the appellant. They were not being paid a regular monthly salary. All the same they were holding a Customs House pass on behalf of the CHA and therefore should be considered as the CHA’s employees. Further acts of commission and omission narrated by the Commissioner are not strictly related to the clearance of goods handled by the appellant. We, therefore, observe that the Commissioner’s order suspending the licence under Regulation 22 of CHALR is not entirely justified in the facts of this case. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order. However, the Commissioner is at liberty to proceed against the CHA under the above Regulations for revocation or otherwise of the licence under appropriate Regulation.
2. The appeal is thus allowed.