T. MATHIVANAN, J.

Challenging the final order No.40710 dated 29.06.2015 and made in the Appeal No.40458 of 2015 on the file of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal(CESTAT), South Zonal Bench at Chennai, this appeal is preferred by the appellant after invoking the provisions of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The edifice of the entire case hinges around the pivot of the order of the first respondent, dated 23.12.2014 and thereby, the custodianship vested on the appellant's CFS was suspended with immediate effect by virtue of the powers conferred upon him under Regulations 11(2) of HCCAR, 2009.

3. In this appeal, we would like to highlight the point that the potentiality of our Nation is being exploited for exportation to get unlawful self enrichment.

4. It is known fact that, of late, the global ball, while moving around, has been wobbling. The reason why is, the drastic change in the environmental condition as the prohibitory activities of ecocide has been continuing unbridledly by certain section of people by removing the valuable and precious timbers, which are absolutely necessary for maintaining the ecological balance and for economic growth.

5. It is unfortunate that no special law to deal exclusively with the offences relating to red sanders and to combat red sanders smuggling, has been enacted by the law-makers.

6. Though the above facts may superficially appear to be irrelevant, still they are absolutely relevant, as they are intertwinedly connected with the factual scenario of the present case.

7. The appellant viz., M/s.Chandra Container Freight Station (CFS) and Terminal Operators Private Ltd., was appointed by the first respondent as the custodian for the import and export goods as per Section 45 of the Customs Act, 1962 vide Public Notice No.77/2007 dated 02.06.2007 at Nallur Village, Minjur, Chennai-601 203.

8. The appellant, as a custodian, is bound to be diligent enough in discharging their duties and obligations under the prevailing customs laws and Handling of Cargo in Customs Area Regulations, (hereinafter it may be referred to as “HCCAR, 2009” wherever the context so require).

9. In so far as the present case is concerned, the container bearing No.SEGU 1697558 containing Red Sander logs weighing 9430 kgs was sized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Unit (DIU) under a mahazar, dated 6.3.2014 and entrusted with the appellant for safe and secured custody.

10. That on 19.12.2004, the said container was removed unauthorisedly from the custody of the appellant by using forged documents.

11. Prima facie, it appeared that the alleged removal of seized goods was due to the gross negligence and utter failure on the part of the appellant for not ensuring safety and security of the seized goods which were kept under their custody.

12. Since the nature of offence was very serious and caused a reasonable doubt on the bona fides of the appellant, the first respondent viz., the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, by exercising the powers vested under Regulation 11(2) of HCCAR, 2009, had passed an order on 23.12.2014 suspending the custodianship of the appellant.

13. Challenging the order of suspension of the custodianship, the appellant had preferred an appeal before the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai and that appeal was dismissed on 29.06.2015 on the ground that, “the bonafide and credibility of conduct of custodian appellant raised a serious doubt and the investigation by customs and police authorities was still pending and yet to be completed and if the appellants were allowed to continue as custodian, it would certainly cause jeopardy and hamper the process of investigation.”

14. While dismissing the appeal, the Tribunal has directed the first respondent to complete the investigation proceedings and take appropriate action under HCCAR, 2009 as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months subject to receiving the investigation report from the police authorities.

15. Alleging