Kothari and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs

1. The appellant is a Custom House Agent whose CHA licence was suspended vide order dated 12-3-1996 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The appeal has been filed by them on 22-10-1996 after it was found that no show cause notice was received by them after completion of the inquires undertaken by the Custom House. The appeal came up for hearing before this Tribunal on 3-1-1997 when a direction was given by the Bench that the matter should be adjourned to 10th February, 1997 as per request of both the parties. When the appeal came up for hearing today Shri H.R. Shetty Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that their CHA licence remains suspended for more than a year with the resort that their livelihood is severely affected inflicting great [suffering] on the employees of the firm. He pointed out that the reason for suspension as could be gathered from the suspension order was that the Proprietor did not respond in time whenever required to attend the Central Intelligence Unit of the Custom House in connection with the inquiries being conducted. It was explained by the Ld. Counsel that the Proprietor was unwell and was undergoing treatment and was not available at his address which led to his non-receipt of the notices and consequent failure to attend the Custom House for the inquiry. He relied upon the decision taken by the Tribunal in the case of Syed Ahmed & Company v. Commissioner, New Delhi reported in 1996 (84) E.L.T.494 wherein suspension ordered by the Custom House was revoked by the Tribunal taking note of the fact that continued suspension affected the livelihood of the employees and the other persons concerned with the firm and the right to carry on business. He pleaded that the licence be ordered to be restored to them by setting aside the suspension order.

He stated that the appellant would fully co-operative with the department with the investigations and further proceedings.

2. It was stated in reply by Shri S.V. Singh Ld. JDR that the appellant company had been proceeded against in the past also when their CHA licence was suspended. The suspension was ordered on 31-12-1995 but the Tribunal vide their order No. 661/95-WRB, dated 1-5-1995 while allowing the appeal modified the suspension till 31-5-1995 so that they could operate under the licence effective from 1-6-1995. Their conduct in the present case also is a serious type and the department has intimated that the inquiry is expected to be completed within a period of 15 days. In the circumstances, he pleaded that the appeal may not be allowed and the department permitted to proceed in the matter. He distinguished the case of Syed Ahmed & Company relied upon by the Ld.

Counsel and stated that the Bench had given a direction to the Custom House to complete inquiry within a specific time but on failure by the Custom House to complete the proceedings within the time so allowed, the decision was taken by the Tribunal to set aside the suspension order and order restoration thereof to the appellant. In the present case he stated that no such direction was given by the Bench which can be said to have [not] been complied with by the department.

3. We have taken note of the arguments of the both the sides. On a perusal of the order dated 12-3-1996, it is seen that suspension of the Custom House Agent licence was resorted to taking note of their proprietor not responding in time to attend the C.I.U. which was conducting inquiries against them. There is also authorisation that due to the carelessness of the CHA, forgery of the Baggage Declaration From at Unaccompanied Baggage Centre had taken place resulting in the use of their stationery and stamps by some unscrupulous elements. Since the suspension was ordered as early as 12-3-1996 which is nearly a year ago and it is reported that the suspension has resulted is loss of livelihood for the proprietor and the employees, we are inclined to consider the appeals sympathetically. We accordingly set aside the suspension order which has been appealed against and direct the Commissioner to restore the licence and permit the appellants to carry on their business in accordance with law and with due diligence. It is expected that the appellants would strictly ensure that full co-operation is extented by the proprietor and the concerned persons of the appellant firm in the investigation and further proceedings and that they refrain from any irregularities or misconduct [in] their business as Custom House Agent. It is also hoped that normal follow up action after the completion of investigations will be taken with proper despatch and responsibility by the Custom House. The appeal is allowed as above.