9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1744 - AT - CustomsSuspension of a custom broker license - appellant s argument is that the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi has failed to observe the time limits strictly prescribed under CBLR, 2013 - contravention of the provisions of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT - It is seen from the records that Commissioner of Customs, Delhi received the intimation of irregularities issued by Additional Commissioner of Customs, SIIB on 28.06.2016. This may be considered as the date of receipt of Offence Report. Regulation 20(1) contemplates issue of Show Cause Notice to the customs broker by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of Offence Report. The issue of Show Cause Notice is to be followed within a period of 90 days by submission of Inquiry Report by Asst. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner and ultimate passing of the order by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of Inquiry report. The order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule is liable to be set aside on these grounds - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Challenge against the order confirming suspension of the appellant's license by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. 2. Appellant's arguments on time limit and merit. 3. Compliance with time limits under CBLR, 2013. 4. Interpretation of time limits and strict adherence to regulations. 5. Precedents emphasizing mandatory observance of time limits under CBLR. Analysis: 1. The appellant challenged the order confirming the suspension of their license by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The suspension was based on alleged irregularities in shipping bills filed by the appellant, leading to the discovery of bogus exporters. The appellant contested the order both on time limit grounds and on the merits of contravening CBLR, 2013 provisions. 2. The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Customs failed to adhere to the strict time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013. Additionally, on the merits, the appellant denied the allegations of violating CBLR, 2013 regulations. The appellant's legal counsel presented a Show Cause Notice proposing the revocation of the license, emphasizing procedural lapses. 3. The CBLR, 2013 empowers the Commissioner to suspend a custom broker's license under Regulation 19, with a clear procedure outlined in Regulation 20. The time limits specified under CBLR are crucial, requiring the issuance of notices, submission of defense statements, inquiry reports, and final orders within specified periods. The appellant highlighted the non-compliance with these time limits by the Commissioner of Customs. 4. The interpretation of time limits under CBLR was crucial in this case, with reference to precedents emphasizing the mandatory nature of adhering to these timeframes. The High Court decisions cited underscored the importance of strictly following the prescribed time limits under CBLR, 2013, making it clear that deviations from these timeframes could render the orders invalid. 5. The Tribunal noted previous decisions where the observance of time limits under CBLR was upheld, setting a precedent for strict compliance. Citing specific cases where orders were set aside due to non-adherence to time limits, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order in this case, issued without following the prescribed time schedule, should be set aside. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits under CBLR, 2013. This detailed analysis highlights the legal intricacies surrounding the challenge against the suspension of the appellant's license, focusing on time limits, compliance with regulations, and the significance of adhering to prescribed procedures in such cases.
|
