2014 (5) TMI 1105 - HC - Customs

Suspension of CHA licence - Regulation 19 of the CBLR, 2013 - Petitioner contended that in compliance with Regulation 19(2), a hearing was given after the suspension order within the time specified but, no order has been made as yet, therefore, entire suspension order vitiate also second part of Regulation 19(2) prescribes a further period of 15 days within which the order is to be made either revoking or confirming the suspension, has to be construed as casting a mandate. Held that - in the absence of any indication, within the Regulation, as to the consequence of not passing an order within the time stipulated, the Court is unpersuaded with the petitioner s arguments that the discretion to pass the order within fifteen days of hearing is, in fact, a mandatory requirement. At the same time, this Court is not oblivious of the fact that more than five months have elapsed since the hearing was given on 31-12-2013. In these circumstances, to balance the equities, it would be appropriate that the Commissioner grants a fresh hearing to the petitioner or his representative as the case may be, within a week from today and thereafter pass orders under Regulation 19 either revoking or confirming the suspension. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order-in-original invoking powers under Regulation 19 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 and suspending CHA license.
2. Interpretation of Regulation 19(2) regarding the time limit for passing an order after a hearing.
3. Balance of equities in granting a fresh hearing and passing orders under Regulation 19.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitioner sought to quash the order-in-original dated 6-12-2013, where the Commissioner of Customs suspended the existing CHA license under Regulation 19 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. The petitioner argued that the suspension order should be vitiated due to the delay in passing a confirming or revoking order after the hearing.

2. The Court analyzed Regulation 19(2) and the petitioner's contention regarding the interpretation of the word "may" in the context of the time limit for passing an order. The Court noted that the Regulation did not specify the consequence of not passing an order within the stipulated time. While the petitioner argued for a mandatory requirement, the Court did not find merit in this argument. However, considering the significant delay since the hearing, the Court decided to balance the equities by directing the Commissioner to grant a fresh hearing within a week and pass orders under Regulation 19 promptly.

3. In order to address the delay and ensure fairness, the Court directed the petitioner or their representative to be present for a hearing on 19th May, 2014. The Commissioner was instructed to pass the order within two weeks of the hearing and communicate it directly to the petitioner, keeping all rights and contentions of the assessee open. The writ petition was disposed of with the mentioned directions to ensure procedural fairness and timely resolution of the matter.