2017 (5) TMI 1673 - AT - Customs

Forfeiture of security deposit - time limitation - case of appellant is that neither the SCN nor the enquiry report and the impugned order were issued within time frame prescribed in the CHALR 2004 - Held that - The regulations contained in the CHALR have not been scrupulously followed by the original authority inasmuch as the SCN was issued after 240 Days from the date of the offence report and there after the impugned order was passed almost after 370 days from the time of such report. Thus the provisions of CHALR in this case have not been strictly followed by the Department. There is no merit in the impugned in so far as forfeiture of the security deposit and imposition of penalty on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 regarding time frame for issuing show cause notice and passing orders.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged an order by the Commissioner of Customs canceling a Customs House Agent (CHA) license, forfeiting a security deposit, and imposing a penalty for non-compliance with the provisions of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004. The appellant contended that the show cause notice (SCN), enquiry report, and impugned order were not issued within the prescribed time frame. The Tribunal noted that the SCN was issued after 240 days from the date of the offense report, and the impugned order was passed almost 370 days after the report, indicating a failure to strictly adhere to the time limits set by the CHALR. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the statutory binding nature of time schedules in the CHALR, holding that authorities must strictly adhere to these limits when initiating proceedings against CHAs.

The Tribunal referred to various cases where High Courts and the Tribunal consistently upheld the importance of adhering to time limits prescribed in the CHALR/CBLR, emphasizing the need for strict compliance by authorities when initiating proceedings against CHAs. In light of the settled legal position, the Tribunal found no merit in the forfeiture of the security deposit and imposition of the penalty on the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order regarding these aspects was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. However, the Tribunal refrained from expressing an opinion on the cancellation of the CHA license, noting that the license had already been canceled in a separate order that was not the subject of the present appeal.