2015 (12) TMI 531 - AT - Customs

Suspension of Custom Broker license - Held that - Under Regulation 21, the Commissioner of Customs is required to issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence. It is on record that the enquiry was ordered on 18.11.2014 i.e. after a period of exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report which was received on 26.07.2014 by the Commissioner. In this view of the matter, we find that there is no justification in continuing the suspension. It is not the argument of Revenue that the time limit prescribed in Regulation 21 is only directory and not mandatory. Therefore, the proceedings under CBLR for suspension are vitiated. - joint reading of erstwhile Regulations 20 & 22 (now Regulations 19 & 20) leads to the inference that the order of suspension passed under 20(2) ibid and its continuation under Regulation 20(3) ibid is only an interim measure and the authority has to take further steps i.e. suspend the licence permanently or revoke the licence under Regulation 22 within the time limit prescribed. Otherwise the order of suspension stopping the right of a person to carry on its business cannot continue. - No justification for suspension of CHA License - Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of customs broker license under Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2013.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Regulations.
3. Justification for continuing suspension of license.
4. Statutory nature of time limits under the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, a customs broker, appealed against the suspension of their customs broker license by the Commissioner of Customs for violations of Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2013 (CBLR). The suspension was based on investigations revealing unauthorized use of IEC codes for foreign outward remittances. The suspension was under Regulation 19(1) for violations of Regulations 10, 11(a), 11(d), and 11(n) of the CBLR.

2. The Tribunal considered the timing of the suspension in relation to the imports that occurred between September 2011 to May 2013. Regulation 19(1) allows for immediate suspension pending an inquiry. However, the Tribunal cited a previous case to emphasize that such action should be emergent and necessary, which was not the case here due to the delayed suspension after the imports had taken place. The Tribunal also noted the requirement under Regulation 21 for issuing a notice within 90 days, which was not met in this case, leading to a lack of justification for continuing the suspension.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the statutory nature of time limits under the Customs Act, emphasizing that the time limits prescribed in the Regulations are mandatory. Failure to adhere to these time limits can vitiate the suspension proceedings. Referring to previous Tribunal and High Court decisions, the Tribunal concluded that the suspension of a license should not continue indefinitely without further steps being taken by the authority, such as permanent suspension or revocation within the prescribed time limits.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no justification for the suspension of the license and set aside the orders dated 30.07.2014 and 11.09.2014, thereby allowing the appeal and reinstating the appellant's customs broker license.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues surrounding the suspension of the customs broker license and the procedural compliance required under the Customs Broker Licence Regulations, 2013, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory time limits under the Customs Act.