N.D. Oza and Sons Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appeal is against the order of suspension of the custom house agent's licence issued to the appellant.2. the bombay port trust wrote to the commissioner in april, 1995 reporting an alleged incident of unauthorised removal of import cargo for the clearance of which the appellant was acting as c.h.a. it appears that the goods were cleared by a person who was not an employee of the appellant. subsequently the department conducted investigations which were hampered to some extent because the appellant's partner was available only in june, 1995, apparently because he was recovering from an accident and his wife was suffering from cancer (from which she ultimately died). the custom house conducted investigations in june and july and passed orders suspending the licence in october, 1995. the notice proposing cancellation of the licence was issued to the appellant a year later in october, 1996. the appellant in his reply dated 31st december said that although an inquiry officer has been appointed by the commissioner in october, 1996, there has been not a single hearing apparently because the inquiry officer had apparently fallen ill. it was therefore contended that, given his pace of work, it will take considerable time for the inquiry to be completed, and that in the meantime the appellant is daily suffering from loss of income, loss of customers, financial burden in that 23 employees have been paid salaries.3. we have considered the departmental representative's plea that some reasonable time may be given for the custom house to complete the inquiry and that the appeal may be kept pending till that time.4. from the sequence of events narrated above it will be noted that the custom house has been proceeding at an extremely leisurely pace in the matter. the customs came to know of alleged money clearance incident in april or may, 1995. its inquiry which led to the decision to suspend the licence took six months. even if the managing partner was not available, there was nothing to stop the customs from inquiring with any person working in the office. further, since the matter has been extensively investigated prior to the suspension of the licence, it would not require the custom house a year to issue a notice proposing cancellation. we are mindful of the difficulties under which the custom house functions with regard to shortage of staff etc. however we must also keep in mind that cha functions in a highly competitive field.every day when he is not able to function on account of suspension, the appellant faces the possibility that his clients may drift away from him and move on to another cha. the custom house, in our view, should have expedited the proceedings.5. we also note the charge framed is of sub-letting the licence which itself does appear to pose a clear grave danger to the revenue as would justify putting the appellant out of business for quite long. if the appellant was sub-letting the licence it continued to do so from april to october when the customs investigated after it became aware of the matter. taking all these facts into account, we were of the view that in the present case, continuance of the suspension is not justified.6. for this reason also we allow the appeal and revoke the orders of suspension. the custom house is at liberty to proceed with action into the regulations with regard to the notice issued to the appellant.

Judgment:
1. The appeal is against the order of suspension of the Custom House Agent's licence issued to the appellant.

2. The Bombay Port Trust wrote to the Commissioner in April, 1995 reporting an alleged incident of unauthorised removal of import cargo for the clearance of which the appellant was acting as C.H.A. It appears that the goods were cleared by a person who was not an employee of the appellant. Subsequently the department conducted investigations which were hampered to some extent because the appellant's partner was available only in June, 1995, apparently because he was recovering from an accident and his wife was suffering from cancer (from which she ultimately died). The Custom House conducted investigations in June and July and passed orders suspending the licence in October, 1995. The notice proposing cancellation of the licence was issued to the appellant a year later in October, 1996. The appellant in his reply dated 31st December said that although an inquiry officer has been appointed by the Commissioner in October, 1996, there has been not a single hearing apparently because the inquiry officer had apparently fallen ill. It was therefore contended that, given his pace of work, it will take considerable time for the inquiry to be completed, and that in the meantime the appellant is daily suffering from loss of income, loss of customers, financial burden in that 23 employees have been paid salaries.

3. We have considered the departmental representative's plea that some reasonable time may be given for the Custom House to complete the inquiry and that the appeal may be kept pending till that time.

4. From the sequence of events narrated above it will be noted that the Custom House has been proceeding at an extremely leisurely pace in the matter. The Customs came to know of alleged money clearance incident in April or May, 1995. Its inquiry which led to the decision to suspend the licence took six months. Even if the managing partner was not available, there was nothing to stop the Customs from inquiring with any person working in the office. Further, since the matter has been extensively investigated prior to the suspension of the licence, it would not require the Custom House a year to issue a notice proposing cancellation. We are mindful of the difficulties under which the Custom House functions with regard to shortage of staff etc. However we must also keep in mind that CHA functions in a highly competitive field.Every day when he is not able to function on account of suspension, the appellant faces the possibility that his clients may drift away from him and move on to another CHA. The Custom House, in our view, should have expedited the proceedings.

5. We also note the charge framed is of sub-letting the licence which itself does appear to pose a clear grave danger to the revenue as would justify putting the appellant out of business for quite long. If the appellant was sub-letting the licence it continued to do so from April to October when the Customs investigated after it became aware of the matter. Taking all these facts into account, we were of the view that in the present case, continuance of the suspension is not justified.

6. For this reason also we allow the appeal and revoke the orders of suspension. The Custom House is at liberty to proceed with action into the regulations with regard to the notice issued to the appellant.