Full Judgment
3. The main contention of the appellant is that no notice was issued to the proprietor Shri Ranbir Singh Rana of M/s National Cargo Service.
The contention is that the licence was suspended on the ground that one of the employees (G. Cardholder) Shri Anup Joshi has committed some irregularity. The appellant relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Agarwal v. UOI and in the case of Jeena & Co. v. C.C. 1987 (28) ELT 223 to submit that where the proprietor of Customs House Agent (CHA) was not put to notice before suspension of licence, the suspension is invalid.
4. The contention of the appellant is that in the present case, the proprietor of CHA was not put to notice nor any enquiry was conducted against the G. Cardholder, therefore, the impugned order whereby the licence was suspended, is not sustainable.
5. The contention of the revenue is that the G. Cardholder Shri Anup Joshi floated two firms in his name and made export ready-made garments by misdeclaring the value of the garments and obtained undue benefit of drawback and DEPB. As the employee of the appellant indulged the activity which resulted in evasion of customs duty, therefore, the licence was rightly suspended under Regulations 20(2) of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004.
6. The main contention raised by the appellant is that no notice was issued to the appellant before suspension of his licence and even no opportunity of hearing was granted before passing the impugned order.
We find that the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Kamal Kumar Agarwal v. UOI (supra) followed its earlier decision in the case of Jeena & Co. v. C.C. (supra) whereby the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that suspension of licence without affording any opportunity of being heard was invalid. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: 19. Next in a judgment of ld. Single Bench reported in 1987 (28) E.L.T. 223 (Cal.) it has been observed that suspension of licence under Regulation 21(2) entails grave civil consequences. Therefore, hearing before making the suspension order is necessary. "It is true that Regulation 21(2) is silent on the point, but in the circumstances of the case, there should have been observance of the rule since there is nothing to show that in view of any extreme urgency of the matter such observance would have frustrated the entire cause. If the statute conferring power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the persons affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature and no review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, the Courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically it would paralyse administrative process or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play must not be (jetti-soned) save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands. In the instant case, the impugned administrative decision involves civil consequences of a grave nature in the sense that the business of the petitioner No. 1 has come to a standstill and there is no provision for review or appeal on merits against that decision and that being so, a minimal hearing should have been given to the petitioners particularly when there is nothing dependable to indicate that it would have paralysed the administrative process or frustrate any alleged need for utmost promptitude. Therefore, the suspension of licence without affording an opportunity of being heard was invalid.
7. In view of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, we set aside the impugned order with liberty to the revenue to proceed against appellant in accordance with law.