By TIOL News Service

CHANDIGARH, DEC 30, 2016: THE DRI, Ludhiana detected a case of attempted export of non-basmati rice which was prohibited under Sl. No. 45A of Schedule 2 of ITC (HS) classification of Export and Import items read with para 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy through the appellant. On the basis of that investigation, an enquiry report was submitted, therefore, the CHA Licence was suspended on 07.07.2010, thereafter, post suspension hearing was given to the appellant on 27.07.2010 by the Commissioner of Customs and after considering the submissions of the appellant, the suspension was confirmed vide order dated 13.08.2010. In the meantime, the show cause notice was issued to the appellant on 12.08.2010 under Regulation 22 of the CHALR 2004.

The Deputy Commissioner conducted the enquiry and submitted his report dated 26.06.2012 and no case has been made for suspension of CHA licence. As the Commissioner of Customs did not agree with the report, he appointed another enquiry officer on 04.07.2012. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 10.08.2012, thereafter, the order of revocation of CHA licence was passed by the Commissioner of Customs on 19.11.2012 revoking the CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit. The appellant is before the CESTAT challenging the said order.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal held:

+ Admittedly in this case, the time limit has not been followed strictly by the Commissioner of Customs as well as enquiry officers therefore, the impugned order is in gross violation of Provisions Regulation 22 of the CHALRs 2004. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

+ T he first enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officers on 26.06.2012 which was not supplied to the appellant and the Commissioner of Customs arbitrarily appointed another enquiry officer on 04.07.2012 who submitted the report as per the wishes of the Commissioner of Customs on 10.08.2012. In fact, there is no provisions in CHALR, 2004 to appoint second enquiry officers but Regulation 22(7) only gives power to the Commissioner of Customs to consider the report submitted by enquiry officers and taken the decision thereon which the Commissioner failed to do so. We do not find any merit in the impugned order, accordingly, the same lacks merit, hence set aside.

(See 2016-TIOL-3361-CESTAT-CHD)