ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The appellants are Custom House Agents holding CHA Licence No. 11/216. The licence was initially suspended by the appellate authority on 19.8.2002. The allegation was that the appellant violated Regulation 14(a), (b),(d) and (i) of CHALR, 1984. After six month of suspension the appellant was given a hearing i.e. on 27th February 2003 and an order confirming the suspension of the appellants licence was passed on under Regulation 21(2) of CHALR on 30.4.2003.
2. It is the appellant’s contention that suspension under Regulation 21(2) is a measure adopted when there is an urgency to stop the CHA from functioning in that capacity. In his case no such urgency was ever shown by the lower authority as is evident from the fact that he passed the impugned order two months after the hearing was concluded. The incident which caused the suspension initially took place on 1.6.2002. The initial suspension order without hearing took place in August. The appellant relied upon the order of Calcutta High Court in the case of N.C. Singha & Sons v. Union of India [1998 (104) ELT 11 (Cal.)] and the order of the Madras High Court in the case of East West Freight Carriers (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Customs [1995 (77) ELT 79 (Mad.)] wherein the courts held that suspension orders which do not indicate the urgency in taking such decisions are result of non application of mind. The appellant also says that investigation into the main offence is completed and a show cause notice is also issued. The authority below did not give any notice under Regulation 24 of CHALR for revoking the licence or otherwise. For more than a year the licence is kept under suspension without a final decision on the matter causing undue hardship to the appellant. The appellants pleaded that the order of suspension should be set aside in the interest of justice.
3. None appeared for the appellant. Written submissions were filed. Heard the Ld. DR and perused the records.
4. A report was received by the Commissioner of Customs (GNL) Mumbai on 1.8.2002 that the appellant acted as a CHA of an export firm involved in the commission of a drawback fraud. The appellants acted as a CHA for the exporter whose address is bogus, who has never given him an authorization to act on his behalf and he has never ever seen him. On receipt of this letter the Commissioner suspended CHA’s licence in his order dated. 19.8.2002. Thus the Commissioner has shown enough urgency in taking action against the CHA. The appellant’s plea that no urgency was shown while taking action is therefore not correct. Secondly the regular proceedings under Regulation 21(2) were also taken with due sense of urgency. The charge of non-application of mind while passing the impugned order also is not sustainable as we could see that the Commissioner has passed a detailed and a reasoned order.
5. The appellants misconduct under CHALR prima facie appears to be grave. The appeal is rejected.
(Pronounced in Court)