9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 82 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA licence - Appellant acted in a irresponsible manner and failed to fulfill the obligation under Regulation 11(a), 11(d) and 11(n) of CBLR, 2013 - Held that - though this suspension was confirmed on 24.4.2015, till now no proceedings by way of issue of show cause notice or inquiry has been initiated under CBLR, 2013 against the appellant, we find the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is also noted that the appellant got renewal of license during the continuation of suspension, so, the continuation of suspension is not legally sustainable and accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. - decided in favour of appellant
Issues:
1. Suspension of Customs Broker license based on alleged irresponsible behavior and failure to fulfill obligations under CBLR, 2013. 2. Challenge against the suspension order on grounds of not following proper procedure and time limits. 3. Legal validity of the continuation of license suspension. 4. Compliance with obligations by the Customs Broker despite importer's mis-declaration. 5. Time frame for initiating proceedings under CBLR, 2013. Analysis: 1. The appellant, a licensed customs broker, challenged the suspension of their license by the Commissioner of Customs based on alleged irresponsible conduct and failure to meet obligations under CBLR, 2013. The suspension was related to a Bill of Entry filed by the appellant for the clearance of goods on behalf of an importer, where discrepancies were found in the declaration of goods. 2. The appellant contested the suspension order both on its merits and procedural grounds, arguing that they had fulfilled all obligations before filing the Bill of Entry. The appellant emphasized that even if the importer had mis-declared goods, the Customs Broker should not be held liable as long as they complied with the prescribed conditions under CBLR, 2013. Additionally, the appellant raised concerns regarding the time frame for initiating proceedings, highlighting a lack of notice or proceedings under Regulation 22 of CBLR, 2013. 3. The Tribunal examined the case records and noted that no show cause notice had been issued for initiating proceedings under CBLR, 2013 despite the suspension of the license. Citing precedents such as Gunjan Sharma vs. CC, New Delhi and Eagle Shipping Agency vs. CC(G) Mumbai, the Tribunal held that in the absence of initiating proceedings within a reasonable time frame, the suspension order could not be sustained. 4. Referring to the decision in the case of Master Cargo Service, the Tribunal emphasized that if no proceedings were initiated within 90 days of receiving the offense report, the suspension of the license could not be continued. Moreover, the Tribunal considered the case of M/s. Swati Freight Movers vs. CC New Delhi, where it was held that suspension cannot persist without the renewal of the license. 5. Based on the above legal principles and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal concluded that the continuation of the license suspension was not legally sustainable. The Tribunal noted that despite the confirmation of suspension, no proceedings had been initiated against the appellant under CBLR, 2013. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, highlighting the legal insufficiency of the suspension in the absence of proper procedural steps and timely initiation of proceedings.
|
