2015 (11) TMI 1323 - AT - Customs

Suspension of the licence - violation of Regulation 13(a) on the ground that neither the exporter nor the suspected middleman could be found at their available addresses and that the CHA also failed to follow Regulation 13(a), 13(k) and 13(o) by not obtaining authorisation from the exporter (as none was produced before the investigation officer), not maintaining the prescribed job register and not verifying the identity and antecedents of the exporter - Held that - Personal hearing was granted after more than nine months after the date of suspension. Not only that, after completion of hearing, the Commissioner took almost seven months to issue the order. We are aware that the time lines prescribed by CBEC are advisory in nature and cannot be given status of mandatory time lines. However, even advisory time lines have certain sanctity inasmuch as if such time lines have been exceeded beyond all reasonable limits, with regard to completion of suspension proceedings, such proceedings will have to be held to be fatally vitiated, more so when such proceedings have a direct and adverse bearing on some-one s livelihood and freedom to pursue a profession. Here is the case where the hearing was granted nine months after the suspension order while the time limit was 15 days and order was issued almost seven months after the hearing while it was expected to be issued in about 15 days. - we do not find any justification in allowing the impugned order to remain alive - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Confirmation of suspension order of CHA license under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004
- Violation of Regulation 13(a), 13(k), 13(o), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004
- Contention regarding violation of time limits prescribed in Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004
- Interpretation of time limits for completion of suspension proceedings against CHA licensees

Confirmation of Suspension Order:
The appeal was filed against the confirmation of the suspension order of the Customs House Agent (CHA) license by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 20 of the CHALR, 2004. The suspension was based on the overvaluation of export consignments and various violations by the CHA, including failure to obtain authorization from the exporter, maintain prescribed records, and verify the identity of the exporter. The CHA was also accused of not properly supervising its employee, leading to a violation of Regulation 19(8) of CHALR, 2004.

Violation of Regulations:
The CHA was found guilty of violating Regulation 13(a), 13(k), 13(o), and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004 due to discrepancies in the export consignments and failure to meet regulatory requirements. The Commissioner confirmed the suspension order under Regulation 20, citing non-compliance with the regulations and pending proceedings under Regulation 22.

Contending Time Limit Violation:
The appellant contended that there was a clear violation of the time limits prescribed in Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. The investigation commenced in September 2010, but the suspension order was issued in May 2011, with the confirmation order being passed in September 2012. The appellant argued that the delay in the proceedings vitiated the order and requested it to be set aside.

Interpretation of Time Limits:
The Circular No. 9/2010-Cus. provided guidelines on time limits for completion of suspension proceedings against CHA licensees. While the CBEC stated that the time limits were advisory, the tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to these timelines. In this case, the personal hearing was delayed by nine months, and the order issuance took seven months after the hearing, far exceeding the prescribed time limits. The tribunal noted that even advisory time limits hold significance, especially when they impact someone's livelihood and professional freedom. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the suspension order, considering the prolonged delay in the proceedings.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits in suspension proceedings against CHA licensees and highlighting the serious implications of delays on individuals' livelihoods and professional pursuits.