2017 (7) TMI 1284 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - time limitation under Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 - Held that - Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 prescribes the time limited to be followed by the Customs Officers to complete the revocation proceedings of the CHA license which is mandatory in nature - In this case it is an admitted fact on record that the SCN was issued by the Department beyond the period of 90 days from the date of submission of offence report. Thus it is evident that the time schedule prescribed in the CBLR 2013 has not been properly adhere to by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. Since observance of the procedure contained in the said regulation are mandatory non-fulfillment of the same cannot decide the case in favor of the Revenue as held by the Hon ble Madras High Court In the case of SARO International Freight System Vs. Commissioner of Customs Chennai 2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of CHA license, forfeiture of security deposit, imposition of penalty under CBLR 2013.

Revocation of CHA License:
The appeal challenged the revocation of the CHA license by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant argued that the issuance of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) proposing revocation of the license beyond 90 days from the submission of the offence report violated Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013. The appellant contended that this non-compliance rendered the revocation order invalid. The Tribunal acknowledged the mandatory nature of the time limit prescribed in the regulation and noted that the SCN was indeed issued beyond the stipulated 90-day period. Citing the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in a similar case, the Tribunal held that failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure cannot favor the Revenue. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the revocation order in favor of the appellant.

Forfeiture of Security Deposit:
The impugned order also included the forfeiture of the bank guarantee furnished as a security deposit by the appellant. However, since the Tribunal allowed the appeal against the revocation of the CHA license, the forfeiture of the security deposit was also set aside as a consequential relief. The Tribunal did not delve into this issue separately, as it was directly linked to the revocation of the license.

Imposition of Penalty under CBLR 2013:
Additionally, the appellant was penalized with a fine of ?50,000 under Regulation 22 read with Regulation 20 of the CBLR 2013. The Tribunal, after setting aside the revocation order, did not specifically address the penalty in its detailed analysis. However, since the entire impugned order was overturned in favor of the appellant due to the procedural non-compliance, it can be inferred that the penalty imposed was also set aside as part of the overall relief granted to the appellant.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi allowed the appeal filed by the appellant against the revocation of the CHA license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of penalty under the CBLR 2013. The Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the procedural timelines prescribed in the regulations and held that non-compliance with such requirements could not be used to justify adverse decisions against the appellant. The decision highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory procedures while taking disciplinary actions, ultimately leading to the reversal of the impugned order in favor of the appellant.