(Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI)

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgments and orders passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as ' the CEGAT') in Appeal bearing No. C/195/01-Mum, whereby the CEGAT had dismissed the Appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, the respondent no.2 herein, revoking the licence of the petitioner as the Custom House Agent (CHA).

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. D.C.Dave for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General of India Mr. P.S. Champaneri for the respondents.

3. The short facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, engaged in the business as CHA since 1949, having its offices at New Delhi, Calcutta, Paradip and Haldia. As per the case of the petitioner, in the month of December – 1997 or thereabout, one R.P.Bansal & Company of Agra (hereinafter referred to as 'the Importer') approached the petitioner through one Sunil Kothari of M/s. Prabhat Kiran Mariners, a proprietorship concern, of one Mr. Parag P. Mehta, and requested the petitioner to act as Custom House Agent for handling the clearance of one consignment of 105 MT of gypsum (hereinafter referred to as 'the saidgoods') at Kandla Port. Accordingly, the petitioner agreed to act as CHA for the Importer and precipitated the course of action for filing the requisite bill of entry on 8th December 1997, bearing the number 10377. It is further the case of the petitioner that after complying the necessary formalities for the clearance of the said goods, the petitioner informed the said M/s. Prabhat Kiran Mariners for taking requisite steps for taking the delivery of the said goods from the authorities of Kandla Port, inasmuch as the said M/s. Prabhat Kiran Mariners were to act as the forwarding and transporting agents for and on behalf of the Importer. Accordingly, the requisite gate pass was prepared on 22nd December 1997 for the purpose of securing removal of the said goods from the North Gate of Kandla Port by the said forwarding and transporting agent of the Importer. At the relevant time, the Custom Authorities did not permit the removal of the said goods from the North Gate and the said Mr. Sunil Kothari was required to precipitate the course of action for seeking permission of Custom Authorities for removal of the said goods from the West Gate in place of the North Gate of Kandla Port. Accordingly, the said goods were removed from the West Gate of Kandla Port on 23rd December 1997.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that thereafter onthe basis of the interim report received by the Custom Authorities suggesting that the said goods were “gypseousalabaster” in place of “gypsum”, an inquiry was undertaken by the Custom Authorities at Kandla Port, wherein the statement of the Subhash Shethi, Executive Director of the petitioner, Mr. Sunil Kothari of M/s. Prabhat Kiran Mariners, etc. came to be recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act'). The premise of the said inquiry was to the effect that “gypseous alabaster” was prohibited for import and therefore the said goods had become liable for confiscation. On the basis of the said inquiry, the respondent no.2 herein passed an order dated 26th February 1998 under the provisions contained in Regulation 21(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Regulations'),suspending the licence of the petitioner as CHA pending the detailed inquiry in to the matter. Thereafter, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.2seeking revocation of the said order of suspension of the licence, however, the respondent no.2 did not accept the said representation of the petitioner and continued the suspens