Per S.L. Peeran : The appellant is a CHA Agent who has been placed under suspension after six months of the cause of action. The appellant himself had informed to the Department about the mistake committed by his documentation clerk in the shipping bills. His case is that there was no intention to commit any fraudulent act and there was no cause for putting him under suspension by Show Cause Notice dated 19.11.2000. It is his complaint that till date, the Commissioner has not completed the enquiry as required in terms of the provisions of CHAL Regulation.

2. The learned Counsel submits that when the action taken for suspension is not immediate and that the Commissioner has also not proceeded to complete the enquiry, then in such a circumstance, the suspension order is required to be set aside. He refers to this bench's order in V.K. Singh Vs. CC, Hyderabad - 2004 (61) RLT 304 (CESTAT-Ban.)=2004 (164) ELT 108 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein, following the ratio of earlier orders of the Tribunal in the case of Freightwings Travels Ltd. Vs. Commissioner - 2001 (43) RLT 439 (CEGAT-LB)=2001 (129) ELT 226 and that of Calcutta High Court rendered in the case of N.C. Singha Sons Vs. UOI - 1998 (104) ELT 11 (Cal.), the suspension order had been set aside. He refers to the Madras High Court judgment rendered in the case of East West Freight Carriers (P) Ltd. Vs. CC, Madras - 1995 (77) ELT 79 (Mad.) which lays down that suspension of licence is not sustainable unless order indicates application of mind by Collector to the aspect whether immediate action was necessary pursuant to contravention by clearing agent. He has also relied on the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of Setwin Shipping Agency Vs. CC, Mumbai - 2004 (60) RLT 807 (CESTAT-Mum.)=2004 (165) ELT 244 (Tri.-Mumbai).

3. The learned SDR submits that this bench has upheld the suspension in the case of Shri N. Kunjan Pillai Vs. CC, Cochin by Final Order No. 1042/2005 dated 27.06.2005 and directed the Commissioner to complete the proceedings within four weeks failing which the suspension order is deemed to have been set aside. He submits that a similar order be given in this case also.

4. On a careful consideration, we find that in the case of Shri N. Kunjan Pillai (supra), the action to place under suspension was immediately taken after the incident had occurred. In the present case, the Department did not take any action suo moto. The CHA himself informed the department about some mistake committed by their clerk. The Commissioner took six months to place the appellant under suspension. Even thereafter, the Commissioner has not taken any steps to complete the proceedings in terms of the provisions of CHALR. Therefore, the reliance on the cited judgments by the Counsel is justified. The order of suspension has to be immediate and after due application of mind. There is no serious offence committed requiring immediate suspension in the present case in terms of Regulation 20 of the CHALR 2004. In view of the judgments cited by the Counsel, the Suspension order is set aside, however, granting liberty to the Commissioner to proceed in terms of law without suspending the CHA. The appeal is allowed.