ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The applicant is a Custom House Agent, a licence holder issued under Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “CHALR, 1984”). The licence was revoked by an order dated 1.8.2003 against which the present application has been filed.
2. It appears that certain investigations were conducted by Customs authorities at Kandla into an export of a consignment declared to be fancy dupattas which were attempted to be exported by one M/s. Siddhnath Shipping, Kandla, whose proprietor Shri Shailesh B. Bhagat was also the power of attorney holder of the present applicant M/s. Shakti Enterprise CHA is a sole proprietary concern of Shri Kishore Bhagat residing at Mumbai. Consequent to the investigations made that the goods declared were not correct in description and quantities, the same were seized and investigation conducted under the Customs Act. Action under CHALR, 1984 was initiated against the present applicants. Their licence was suspended under Regulation 21(2) vide the Commissioner of Custom’s order dated 5.2.2002 on the ground that CHA’s power of attorney holder while acting as CHA misdeclaring the quantity and quality of the export for M/s. Siddhnath Shipping, violated the provisions of CHALR, 1984. In an appeal preferred against the order of suspension, this Tribunal vide their order dated 22.7.2002 set aside the suspension order, making it clear that the enquiry instituted in the case of alleged misdeclaration could be concluded and the revocation of suspension order will in no manner affect those proceedings. Proceedings under CHALR, 1984 were concluded by the impugned order dated 1.8.2003 wherein the Commissioner, after considering the material on record and hearing the appellants before him, concluded and ordered that in view of the findings arrived by him, revoked the applicants’ CHA licence under the powers vested with him in Regulation 21 of CHALR, 1984.
3. The applicants are seeking stay of this order of revocation on the grounds that violation of principles of natural justice has been made inasmuch as the order has been passed in an extremely cavalier manner exposing gross bias and prejudice depriving the applicants and their employees of their legitimate business.
4. After hearing both sides and considering the material on record and the reliance placed by the learned advocate on the case of Express Kargo Forwarders Pvt. Ltd v. CC, Bangalore 2002 (143) KLT 128 (Tribunal) and other decisions relied upon, it is found that no case has been made out by the applicants to invoke the inherent powers of this Tribunal to grant a stay of the operation of the revocation order. The facts and circumstances in the present case are different from the ones occurring in the various cases cited before us. In the present case, the power of attorney holder Shri Shailesh Bhagat acted in a manner prejudicial to the continuation of CHA licence granted to the CHA firm. Before revocation of the licence of the applicants, due procedure established by law under the CHALR, 1984 is followed. The issues raised as regards the knowledge and complicity of the CHA licensee in the alleged misdemeanour and the role played in the misdeclaration made on the Customs documents are the very issue which will have to be decided in the final hearing. At this prima facie stage, after perusal of the detailed findings arrived at by the learned Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, in the impugned order, we are of the opinion that no case is made out for invoking the inherent jurisdiction to stay the revocation order under CHALR, 1984. Therefore, we refrain from passing a stay of the operation of the said order pending final hearing of this appeal.
5. While rejecting the stay application, applicants’ request for early hearing has been granted and the matter is fixed for hearing on 19th January, 2004. The stay application is dismissed.
6. Ordered accordingly.