9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1419 - HC - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker s Licence issued to the petitioner - forfeiture of security deposit/bank guarantee - time limitation for issuance of SCN - HELD THAT - The petitioner was prohibited from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone I II III under the provisions of Regulation 23 of CBLR 2013 in terms of Order No. 33/2017-18 dated 08.09.2017 passed by the Principal Commssioner of Customs (General) Mumbai Zone-1 for alleged violations of Regulations 10 11(b) 11(d) 11(n) and 17(5) of CBLR 2013. The issue as to whether the Offence Report dated 14.06.2017 was received by the respondent on 18.09.2017 or before 18.09.2017 i.e on 14.06.2017 is a disputed question of fact. It has to be determined only by the Tribunal. The petitioner has to therefore file a statutory appeal in terms of Regulation 19 of the Customs Broker Licensing Authority Regulations 2018 which has came into force at the time of the impugned order was passed on 01.06.2018. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed - Petition disposed off.
Issues involved: Challenge to impugned Order-in-Original revoking Customs Broker's License, forfeiture of security deposit, imposition of penalty, and surrender of cards.
Summary: The petitioner challenged the impugned Order-in-Original revoking the Customs Broker's License primarily on the ground of delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice as per Customs Broker Licensing Regulations. The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice should have been issued within 90 days of receiving the offence report, but it was issued beyond the limitation period. The petitioner also contended that the communication of the impugned order was not properly served, leading to delayed knowledge of the order. The petitioner relied on various legal precedents to support their case. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the Show Cause Notice was issued within the prescribed time limit from the date of receipt of the offence report. The respondent presented evidence to show the timely receipt of the offence report and the communication of the impugned order to one of the petitioner's cardholders. The respondent referred to a Supreme Court decision to strengthen their argument. The Court considered the arguments from both sides and noted that the petitioner was prohibited from operating in certain customs zones due to alleged violations. The Court highlighted that the exact date of the offence report receipt was a disputed fact to be determined by the Tribunal. The Court directed the petitioner to file a statutory appeal within 30 days for further review by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court left all issues related to limitation for the Appellate Authority to decide. The writ petition was dismissed with liberty to file a statutory appeal within the specified timeframe for expedited resolution due to the suspension and revocation of the license. In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition with observations on the need for a statutory appeal and left the interpretation of regulations to the Appellate Authority for decision-making. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
|
