2014 (5) TMI 364 - AT - Customs

Bar of Limitation Non-initiation of enquiry proceedings for 3 years - Suspension of CHA licence - Regulation 20(2) & 22 of the CHALR, 2004 Held that - As per C.B.E.& C. Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., dated 8-4-2010 the time limit has been prescribed to complete the proceedings under Regulation 22 of the licence suspended under Regulation 20(2) - Overall the time limit is only nine months - In this case, almost three years have been elapsed and no enquiry proceedings have been initiated against the appellant - Therefore, the impugned order set aside Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against suspension of CHA license under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR, 2004.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a Customs House Agent (CHA), appealed against the suspension of their CHA license under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The suspension occurred on 1-7-2010, and a post-decisional hearing was provided to the appellant. The suspension was confirmed by an order dated 3-9-2010, but no further proceedings under Regulation 22 were initiated against the appellant.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that as per Board Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., dated 8-4-2010, there is a time limit of nine months to complete proceedings under Regulation 22. However, despite the suspension on 1-7-2010, no charges were framed against the appellant, no show cause notice was issued, and the appellant had been out of business since then. Therefore, the advocate requested setting aside the impugned order.

3. The Assistant Commissioner (AR) reiterated the findings of the impugned order, opposing the appellant's arguments.

4. After hearing both parties and considering their submissions, the tribunal examined Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., which sets a nine-month time limit for completing proceedings under Regulation 22 for licenses suspended under Regulation 20(2). In this case, almost three years had passed without any enquiry proceedings initiated against the appellant.

5. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal of the appellant with consequential relief. The stay application was also disposed of accordingly. An order for dasti was given.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key arguments presented by both sides, the relevant legal provisions, and the tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order based on the failure to initiate proceedings within the prescribed time limit.