Unison Clearing (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (General)

Unison Clearing (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cus. (General)

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Feb 21, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/41892

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/41892
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A Wadhwa, S T S.S.
Decided On: Feb 21, 2006
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Unison Clearing (P) Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Cus. (General)

Excerpt

.....of customs (general) mumbai, order a suspension under chalr, 1984 is well founded. however, the very said decision of hon'ble calcutta high court stipulates that the suspension should have nexus with immediate cause of action. belated suspension, prima facie cannot be justified since it would amount to punishment inasmuch as the suspension of a cha licence results in stoppage of work at mumbai customs house, the employment of many people besides, the cha at bombay, which has no nexus with the alleged act of forgery, which is yet to be established at amritsar customs house. the order of the commissioner impugned before us also does not have the bill of entry particular number to come to a conclusion, as to find that alleged forgery had taken place in recent past. in this view of the matter, we find that there is no cause for suspension, nor there is a nexus in time or facts with the alleged act to call for suspension of the operation of a licence at mumbai customs house. we therefore, set aside the order of the suspension impugned before us.4. we make it clear that setting aside this order of the suspension will not give any right whatsoever to the applicant, if any, further enquiry, the commissioner wants to conduct under the chalr against the said licensee. the appeal allowed by setting aside the order of the suspension.

Full Judgment

2. The appellant are a CHA with Mumbai Customs House and their licence has been suspended vide an order dated 19-1-2006 by the Commissioner of Customs (General) New Custom House, Mumbai, on receipt of certain information received from Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, who had suspended the licence of the very same company at Customs House at Amritsar granted Collector of Customs, Amritsar. The ground for the suspension, as they appears from the order impugned before us, is an allegation of forgery of the signatures of the officers by the employees of the said CHA company during the course of clearance of imported goods under DEPB scheme, without mentioning when such imports were effected within the jurisdiction of the Amritsar Customs House.

3. The appellants rely upon the certain case laws on the subject to the effect that no suspension be called for at the matter Customs for which alleged misuse by an another Customs House Agent, (this Tribunal decision in the case of Swen Agencies Pvt Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin , which has been followed. Since no contrary decision has been shown to us, we follow this settled position to arrive at not upholding the present order of suspension. Reliance of Ld. DR on the case of decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Orient Clearing & Forwarding Agency v. Union of India 2001 (136) E.L.T. 3 (Cal.) and the submission that no enquiry was required to be effected by the Commissioner of Customs (General) Mumbai, order a suspension under CHALR, 1984 is well founded. However, the very said decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court stipulates that the suspension should have nexus with immediate cause of action. Belated suspension, prima facie cannot be justified since it would amount to punishment inasmuch as the suspension of a CHA licence results in stoppage of work at Mumbai Customs House, the employment of many people besides, the CHA at Bombay, which has no nexus with the alleged act of forgery, which is yet to be established at Amritsar Customs House. The order of the Commissioner impugned before us also does not have the Bill of Entry particular number to come to a conclusion, as to find that alleged forgery had taken place in recent past. In this view of the matter, we find that there is no cause for suspension, nor there is a nexus in time or facts with the alleged act to call for suspension of the operation of a licence at Mumbai Customs House. We therefore, set aside the order of the suspension impugned before us.

4. We make it clear that setting aside this order of the suspension will not give any right whatsoever to the applicant, if any, further enquiry, the Commissioner wants to conduct under the CHALR against the said licensee. The appeal allowed by setting aside the order of the suspension.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Unison Clearing (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Cus. (General) Same Subject Customs Same Judge A Wadhwa, S T S.S.