N.K. Meena Vs. Commissioner of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. shri n.k. meena is registered as a custom house agent with the commissioner of customs, jaipur holding cha licence no. 02/chal/r/99.his licence has been suspended by the commissioner by order dated 25-4-2000. this order is reproduced below :- "whereas an enquiry against shri n.k. meena, cha is pending / contemplated. now therefore, the undersigned, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-regulation (2) of regulation 21 of customs house agents licensing regulations, 1984 hereby suspend the customs house agent licence no. 02/chal/r/99 issued to shri n.k. meena, cha with immediate effect." 2. the cha is in appeal against the above suspension order passed by the commissioner of customs. shri l.p. asthana, advocate is appearing for the cha. the revenue is not represented.3. the ld. advocate for the appellants submits that the suspension order under regulation 21(2) of the customs house agents licensing regulations, 1984 (chalr for short), must indicate that the commissioner has formed an opinion that immediate action was necessary to suspend the licence pending enquiry. it is submitted that the no reasons have been mentioned for the suspension or the need for immediate action. it is further submitted that the impugned order does not disclose the necessity of immediate action nor does it mention the matter in respect of which an enquiry is pending or contemplated. it is also submitted that the suspension of the licence has severely affected the livelihood of the appellant and it employees, therefore, immediate consideration on their appeal is prayed. the ld. advocate in support of his case has relied on a number of decisions of the hon'ble high courts and cegat which have been taken into consideration in the decision in poonam cargo services v. collector of customs, delhi, 1999 (110) e.l.t.696 (tribunal).4. i have carefully considered the submissions made before me. this issue of immediate suspension of a cha licence has received detailed consideration in the decision of the tribunal in poonam cargo services (supra). this order is passed on taking into consideration the findings arrived at in the following judgments/decisions from which the extracts in extenso are also cited: - (i) n.c. singha & sons v. union of india -1998 (104) e.l.t. 11 (cal), (ii) east west freight carrier pvt. ltd. v. collector - 1995 (77) e.l.t. 79 (madras), (iii) eagle shipping (india) services v. collector - 1993 (68) e.l.t. 419 (tribunal), (iv) trinity shipping and allied services v. collector -1994 (50) ecr 319 (tribunal) and (v) vikas shipping agency v. commissioner - 1998 (98) e.l.t. 275 (tribunal).the tribunal in the cited case has held that suspension of cha licence is not sustainable unless the suspension order indicates application of mind by the commissioner to the aspect whether immediate action was necessary pursuant to contravention by the clearing agent. it is further held that the suspension order itself should disclose that the matter could not brook any delay, that the matter was so urgent as to warrant action under regulation 21(2) and that the ground of immediate action is also spelt out in the order itself.5. on applying the aforesaid guidelines, it is observed that in the present case, there is no indication in the order of the commissioner as to on what grounds the suspension has been ordered much less there is any reason given for the necessity of immediate action for suspension of the licence. there is also no grounds stated that the act of suspension of the cha licence could not be delayed until after the enquiry is completed against the appellant. in the result, i find that the order is completely arbitrary and not in accordance with the provisions of regulation 21(2) of the chalr and the norms of justice.6. in view of the above findings, i set aside the order appealed against and allow the appeal. it is, however, made clear that this order does not preclude the commissioner from exercising his powers under regulation 21(2) of the chalr, 1984 in accordance with law.

Judgment:
1. Shri N.K. Meena is registered as a Custom House Agent with the Commissioner of Customs, Jaipur holding CHA Licence No. 02/CHAL/R/99.

His licence has been suspended by the Commissioner by Order dated 25-4-2000. This Order is reproduced below :- "Whereas an enquiry against Shri N.K. Meena, CHA is pending / contemplated.

Now therefore, the undersigned, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 21 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 hereby suspend the Customs House Agent Licence No. 02/CHAL/R/99 issued to Shri N.K. Meena, CHA with immediate effect." 2. The CHA is in appeal against the above suspension order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. Shri L.P. Asthana, Advocate is appearing for the CHA. The Revenue is not represented.

3. The ld. Advocate for the appellants submits that the suspension order under Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (CHALR for short), must indicate that the Commissioner has formed an opinion that immediate action was necessary to suspend the licence pending enquiry. It is submitted that the no reasons have been mentioned for the suspension or the need for immediate action. It is further submitted that the impugned order does not disclose the necessity of immediate action nor does it mention the matter in respect of which an enquiry is pending or contemplated. It is also submitted that the suspension of the licence has severely affected the livelihood of the appellant and it employees, therefore, immediate consideration on their appeal is prayed. The ld. Advocate in support of his case has relied on a number of decisions of the Hon'ble High Courts and CEGAT which have been taken into consideration in the decision in Poonam Cargo Services v. Collector of Customs, Delhi, 1999 (110) E.L.T.696 (Tribunal).

4. I have carefully considered the submissions made before me. This issue of immediate suspension of a CHA licence has received detailed consideration in the decision of the Tribunal in Poonam Cargo Services (supra). This order is passed on taking into consideration the findings arrived at in the following judgments/decisions from which the extracts in extenso are also cited: - (i) N.C. Singha & Sons v. Union of India -1998 (104) E.L.T. 11 (Cal), (ii) East West Freight Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector - 1995 (77) E.L.T. 79 (Madras), (iii) Eagle Shipping (India) Services v. Collector - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 419 (Tribunal), (iv) Trinity Shipping and Allied Services v. Collector -1994 (50) ECR 319 (Tribunal) and (v) Vikas Shipping Agency v. Commissioner - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 275 (Tribunal).

The Tribunal in the cited case has held that suspension of CHA licence is not sustainable unless the suspension order indicates application of mind by the Commissioner to the aspect whether immediate action was necessary pursuant to contravention by the Clearing Agent. It is further held that the Suspension order itself should disclose that the matter could not brook any delay, that the matter was so urgent as to warrant action under Regulation 21(2) and that the ground of immediate action is also spelt out in the order itself.

5. On applying the aforesaid guidelines, it is observed that in the present case, there is no indication in the order of the Commissioner as to on what grounds the suspension has been ordered much less there is any reason given for the necessity of immediate action for suspension of the licence. There is also no grounds stated that the act of suspension of the CHA licence could not be delayed until after the enquiry is completed against the appellant. In the result, I find that the order is completely arbitrary and not in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR and the norms of justice.

6. In view of the above findings, I set aside the order appealed against and allow the appeal. It is, however, made clear that this order does not preclude the Commissioner from exercising his powers under Regulation 21(2) of the CHALR, 1984 in accordance with law.