9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 907 - HC - CustomsRevokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit - Licence suspended prior to SCN - No proceedings took place for almost 3 years after replies were filed by the petitioner to the SCN - Failure to adhere to the time limit under Regulation 22(5) of CHALR - Held that - the case is identical to that of M/s S.K. Logistics Versus CC (General) New Delhi 2015 (11) TMI 1155 - CESTAT NEW DELHI . The only explanation offered by the Department is that the earlier inquiry officer appointed to adjudicate the SCN dated 14th October, 2011 retired and it was only after the new inquiry officer was appointed by the letter dated 8th December, 2014 that the inquiry could be completed and a report submitted on 23rd January 2015. In the case of S. K. Logistics, this Court held that this was hardly a justification for not adhering to mandatory time limit set out in Regulation 22(5) of the CHALR. Therefore, this Court quashes the Order-in-Original passed in the case of the Petitioner. Any action taken consequent to the impugned order and the Inquiry Report that led to its passing shall also stand quashed. The Petitioner s CHA licence is stated to have expired in the meanwhile and not renewed. The Respondent will process the Petitioner‟s application for renewal of its licence in accordance with law without any unnecessary delay. - Decided in favour of petitioner
Issues:
Challenge to letter dated 8th December, 2014 and subsequent actions including final inquiry report and adjudication order. Violation of Regulations 13(a), 13(d), 13(e), and 13(o) of CHALR, 2004. Delay in submitting the inquiry report. Quashing of Order-in-Original dated 10th April, 2015 and related actions. Renewal of CHA license. Analysis: Challenge to Letter and Subsequent Actions: The petition challenged a letter dated 8th December, 2014, which issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the Petitioner regarding the revocation of their CHA license and forfeiture of the deposit. Additionally, the final inquiry report dated 19th January, 2015 and the adjudication order dated 10th April, 2015 by the Commissioner of Customs were also challenged. The Petitioner had responded to the earlier SCN dated 14th October, 2011, highlighting the delay in proceedings and suffering heavy losses due to the suspension of their license. Violation of Regulations: The inquiry report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner concluded that the CHAs, including the Petitioner, had violated Regulations 13(a), 13(d), 13(e), and 13(o) of CHALR, 2004, making them liable for suitable action. The Petitioner, through their counsel, raised concerns regarding the lack of response to their representations and the issuance of the impugned letter without considering their previous replies. Delay in Submitting Inquiry Report: The Court noted a significant delay of over three years in submitting the inquiry report, which was attributed to the retirement of the initial inquiry officer. This delay was deemed unjustified, leading to the quashing of the Order-in-Original dated 10th April, 2015, as it failed to adhere to the time limit stipulated in Regulation 22(5) of CHALR. Quashing of Order and Related Actions: Following the precedent set in a similar case, the Court quashed the Order-in-Original dated 10th April, 2015, along with any actions taken based on it. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the mandatory time limits set out in the regulations, highlighting the lack of justification for the prolonged delay in completing the inquiry and submitting the report. Renewal of CHA License: As the Petitioner's CHA license had expired and not been renewed during the proceedings, the Court directed the Respondent to process the renewal application without unnecessary delay, in accordance with the law. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs, providing relief to the Petitioner in the specified terms.
|
