2016 (5) TMI 671 - AT - Customs

Period of limitation - Revokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit - Regulation 20 of the CHALR, 2004 - Mis-declaration of value as well as description - Held that - the show cause notice proposing revocation has been issued on 12.07.2013, well beyond the ninety days limit prescribed for the same in regulation 22(1). The inquiry report which is mandated to be completed within ninety days from the date of the show cause notice has been filed only on 27.11.2014, very much beyond the ninety days time limit prescribed for the same. Finally the impugned order has been passed within ninety days from the date of inquiry report. However, the overall time taken were completion of regular proceeding is a period of 23 months, which is much beyond the allowed total duration of nine months. Therefore, by following the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , which directly dealt with CBLR and sanctity time limit under the regulation, the order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule is set aside. Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit.
2. Compliance with time limits for issuance of show cause notice and completion of proceedings.
3. Allegations of contravention of CHALR, 2004 Regulations 13(o) and 19(8).

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant had obtained a CHA license and filed shipping bills for export, leading to mis-declaration of value and descriptions. The Commissioner imposed penalties and initiated proceedings under CHALR, 2004, resulting in the revocation of the license. The appellant challenged the order on time limits and merit, denying the contravention of regulations.

2. The CHALR, 2004 Regulation 22 prescribes the procedure for suspending or revoking a license, including time limits for issuing notices, inquiry reports, and passing orders. The appellant argued non-compliance with the prescribed time limits, specifically regarding the issuance of show cause notice and completion of proceedings within 90 days. The Tribunal referred to a High Court decision emphasizing strict adherence to time schedules in regulatory proceedings, setting aside the impugned order due to non-compliance with time limits.

3. The Tribunal highlighted previous decisions emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits in regulatory proceedings, citing instances where orders were set aside for non-compliance. Relying on the High Court decision and consistent Tribunal precedents, the impugned order revoking the license was set aside due to failure to adhere to the prescribed time schedule under CHALR, 2004. The appeal was allowed, overturning the original authority's decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues of license revocation, compliance with time limits, and allegations of contravention under CHALR, 2004. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to regulatory time schedules in such proceedings, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed and the impugned order being set aside.