9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1566 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) to issue SCN - Time limitation - Penalty - Held that - To be noted in Master Stroke a learned single Judge of this Court has clearly ruled that the period of 90 days provided for issuance of SCN is mandatory - even if I were to take into account the latter date which is the date when the order-in original was passed the impugned SCN issued to the petitioner for revocation of his licence would be way out of time. Therefore taking into account the position of law and the facts obtaining in this case I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition - Petition allowed.
Issues:
1. Challenge to Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 18.10.2016 for being beyond the time prescribed under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. 2. Allegation of illegal export of red sanders by Customs House Clearing Agent (CHA) and exporter. 3. Imposition of penalty on the petitioner. 4. Appeal filed against the penalty order. 5. Grievance against the action taken by respondent No.1 in issuing the SCN for revocation of the license. Analysis: Issue 1: Challenge to SCN Timing The petitioner challenged the SCN issued on 18.10.2016 as time-barred under Regulation 20(1) of the 2013 Regulations. The petitioner relied on various judgments emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 90-day period for issuing SCN. The Court referred to the Master Stroke case where it was held that the 90-day period for issuing SCN is mandatory. The Court also cited the A.M.Ahamed & Co. case where it was noted that the date of knowledge gained by the Commissioner should be considered as the date of receipt of the offense report. The Division Bench in Delhi High Court cases reiterated the importance of the 90-day period for issuing SCN. The Court, in line with previous judgments, ruled that the impugned SCN issued on 18.10.2016 was beyond the prescribed time limit and consequently quashed it. Issue 2: Allegation of Illegal Export The petitioner, a CHA, was involved in the attempted illegal export of red sanders by mislabeling the consignment. The consignment was intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, leading to its confiscation. Both the exporter and the CHA were issued a SCN for misrepresentation. The petitioner's appeal against the penalty imposed was noted, indicating dissatisfaction with the penalty order. Issue 3: Penalty Imposition A penalty of ?5.00 lakhs was imposed on the petitioner, leading to the filing of an appeal against the penalty order. The imposition of the penalty was a significant factor in the petitioner's challenge against the subsequent SCN for license revocation. Issue 4: Appeal Against Penalty Order The petitioner had filed an appeal against the penalty order dated 29.05.2015, where a penalty of ?5.00 lakhs was imposed. The dissatisfaction with the penalty order was evident from the appeal filed by the petitioner. Issue 5: Grievance Against SCN for License Revocation The petitioner moved the Court to challenge the SCN issued for revocation of the license, arguing that it was time-barred. The Court, after considering relevant judgments emphasizing the mandatory nature of the 90-day period for issuing SCN, ruled in favor of the petitioner and quashed the impugned SCN dated 18.10.2016. No costs were awarded, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed as a result of the judgment.
|
