9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1063 - HC - CustomsRevokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit - Requirement of Regulation 22(5) not fulfilled - Held that - this Court is not bound by the order of the CESTAT for its precedential value. A careful perusal of the said order reveals that no plea was urged by the said Appellant CHA before the CESTAT that the mandatory time limit under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR 2004 was violated. What has been recorded in the said order is a contention of the said Appellant that the time limit under Regulation 22(1) of CHALR 2004 was not adhered to. That time limit concerns the issuance of show cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report . In that case there was no occasion for the CESTAT to consider whether the violation of the time limit under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR 2004 for submitting the enquiry report would vitiate the proceedings. No explanation has been offered by the Department for not adhering to the time limit of ninety days stipulated in Regulation 22 (5) of the CHALR. All that is stated in the memorandum of appeal is that the file could not be traced and therefore there was delay in the SCN being issued under Regulation 22(1) of the CHALR. The issue here is not so much about in the issuing of the SCN. It is about the unexplained delay of over three years in submitting the enquiry report. For the said delay the only explanation is that the first inquiry officer retired without submitting the report. This by no means justifies the extraordinary delay of more than three years after the date of the SCN in completing the inquiry and submitting a report. In the circumstances, the view taken by the CESTAT that the consequential order of revocation of licence is vitiated in law cannot be faulted with. No substantial question of law arise for consideration by this Court. - Decided against the revenue
Issues:
1. Adherence to time limits under Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) for revocation of license. 2. Compliance with procedural requirements for inquiry and submission of report. 3. Justification for delay in inquiry process and submission of report. 4. Comparison with a similar case regarding time limit violations. 5. Consideration of precedential value of CESTAT orders. Analysis: 1. The case involves an appeal by the Customs Department against an order revoking the Customs House Agent (CHA) license of the Respondent due to a violation of the time limit specified under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR. The issue revolves around the adherence to procedural requirements for revocation of the license. 2. The Customs Department issued a show cause notice (SCN) to the Respondent based on an offense report, initiating an inquiry process. However, the first Inquiry Officer retired without submitting a report within the stipulated 90 days, as required by Regulation 22(5) of CHALR. Subsequently, a second Inquiry Officer submitted a report, leading to the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit. 3. The Court noted that the delay of over three years in submitting the inquiry report was unjustified. The Department failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, attributing it to the retirement of the first Inquiry Officer and the inability to trace the file. Such reasons were deemed insufficient to justify the prolonged delay in completing the inquiry process. 4. The Court addressed a comparison with a similar case where the CESTAT's decision was cited by the Senior Standing Counsel. However, it was clarified that the previous case did not involve a plea regarding the violation of the time limit under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR. Therefore, the precedent cited was deemed inapplicable to the current case. 5. The Court emphasized that it was not bound by the precedential value of CESTAT orders. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal and application, upholding the CESTAT's decision that the revocation of the license was vitiated in law due to the unjustified delay in submitting the inquiry report. No substantial question of law was found to warrant further consideration by the Court.
|
