2014 (8) TMI 847 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA licence under Regulation 20(2) / 20(3) of CHAR 2004 - Report from investigating Authority came to record on 11.01.2013 - The order of suspension dated 30.01.2013, crossed limitation of 15 days prescribed under Regulation 20(2) - Held that - limitation for proceeding under regulation 20(3) ought to have started from 27.01.2013 since fifteen from 11.01.2013 expired on 26.01.2013. Notice initiating proceeding under regulation 20(3) was issued on 01.02.2013 and the impugned order dated 07.11.2013 confirming suspension was passed under regulation 20(3) of CHALR 2004. The order so passed also suffered from legal infirmity on different count apart from limitation stated above. Law of limitation is not casually enacted in the statute book. When right to profession is taken away by law, that is to be done in accordance with law following due process and within the time frame prescribed there under. Law of limitation is construed in the manner that is designed in the enactment. Its object should not be frustrated. In the absence of power on the Tribunal to condone the delay prayed by Revenue, that is not entertainable. Suspension of CHA licence takes away right to profession by a CHA. Withdrawal or denial of such right is construed to be penal in character. Therefore law of limitation enacted in both the sub-regulations is mandatory. Non-compliance thereto makes the orders of suspension unsustainable. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of CHA license under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR 2004
2. Initiation of proceeding under Regulation 20(3) of CHALR 2004
3. Compliance with statutory limitations and principles of natural justice

Analysis:

Issue 1: Suspension of CHA license under Regulation 20(2) of CHALR 2004
The appellant's CHA license was suspended based on involvement in the clearance of restricted goods. The suspension order did not disclose the basis of the suspension, leading to a lack of transparency. The order was passed beyond the 15-day limit prescribed by Regulation 20(2) of CHALR 2004, which was a violation of the regulation. The investigation report was received on 11.01.2013, and the suspension order was passed on 30.01.2013, exceeding the statutory time limit.

Issue 2: Initiation of proceeding under Regulation 20(3) of CHALR 2004
Proceedings under Regulation 20(3) were initiated against the appellant without providing the relied-upon documents for defense. The notice for this proceeding was issued on 01.02.2013, which did not specify the basis and reason for the proceeding. The appellant's right to defense was compromised due to the non-supply of relevant documents, violating the principles of natural justice. The order confirming the suspension suffered from legal infirmities, including non-compliance with statutory limitations.

Issue 3: Compliance with statutory limitations and principles of natural justice
The Tribunal found that the orders dated 30.01.2013 and 07.11.2013 were set aside due to the violation of statutory limitations and principles of natural justice. The law of limitation, as prescribed by the regulations, was deemed mandatory, and any non-compliance rendered the suspension orders unsustainable. The Revenue's contention of administrative difficulties causing delays was not accepted, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and due process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed both appeals, setting aside the suspension orders dated 30.01.2013 and 07.11.2013. The judgment highlighted the significance of complying with statutory limitations and principles of natural justice in proceedings related to the suspension of CHA licenses under the CHALR 2004 regulations.