2016 (1) TMI 1331 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - violation of time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(1) - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Sri Radhakrishna Shipping (P) Ltd. v. C.C. (General), Mumbai 2014 (11) TMI 909 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that if any of the intermediary steps such as such issue of SCN, drawing up of an inquiry report, or passing of a revocation order is beyond the periods mandated under Regulation 20 of the 2013 Licensing Regulations, the eventual order of revocation would be invalid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge to the revocation of Customs Broker license and forfeiture of security deposit based on violation of time limits prescribed in Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved an appeal by a licenced Customs Broker against the revocation of their license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant contested the order issued by the ld. Commissioner of Customs (General), New Custom House, New Delhi, dated 27-2-2015. The primary contention raised by the appellant's counsel was the invalidity of the order due to the transgression of time limits specified in Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. The Tribunal refrained from delving into other arguments presented by the appellant, focusing solely on the time limit violation issue.

The impugned order was based on a show cause notice issued on 28-7-2014, with the enquiry report submitted by the Dy. Commissioner on 23-12-2014, exceeding the 90-day limit prescribed by Regulation 20(5). Citing legal precedents, including judgments by various High Courts and the Tribunal, it was established that any delay in intermediary steps such as issuing a show cause notice, preparing an inquiry report, or passing a revocation order beyond the specified timeframes renders the eventual revocation order invalid. The Tribunal, based on this analysis, concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained and subsequently quashed it.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal of the licenced Customs Broker, setting aside the impugned order revoking the license and forfeiting the security deposit. The decision was made on the grounds of the violation of time limits prescribed in Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. The appeal was allowed without imposing any costs on the appellant.