2016 (5) TMI 1060 - AT - Customs

Period of limitation - non-maintainance of time limit in terms of Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 - Revokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit - clearance of undeclared high value items and also several discrepancies in the description as well as quantity of goods imported - Delay of more than one year in completion of enquiry - Held that - the decision of Hon ble High Court of Mumbai in A.M. Ahamed & Co. Vs. CC (Imports), Chennai 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is applicable to the facts of the present case on both the grounds of time limit as well as implication of settlement of case by the main importer. It is found that Hon ble High court of Madras in a recent order in Saro International Pvt. System Vs. C.C. 2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT after detailed examination of various decided cases held that the time limit prescribed in CBLR 2013 are to be strictly followed by the authorities taking action under the said Regulation. It is also found that there is a substantial delay of more than a year in completion of the enquiry and also in issue of the present impugned order. Therefore, the delay which is beyond the prescribed limits of CHALR / CBLR will make the impugned order legally unsustainable. The various decisions including the ones cited above are clear about legal position. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Revocation of custom house agent license and forfeiture of security deposit.
2. Violation of provisions of Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004.
3. Non-adherence to prescribed time limits in proceedings.
4. Merits of the case regarding penalty imposed and settlement by main importer.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the revocation of the custom house agent license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant, a custom house agent, was involved in a case where discrepancies were found in the imported goods. The investigation led to proceedings against the importers and the appellant. The importer settled the case, and a penalty was imposed on the appellant. The proceedings under Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004 were initiated, leading to the revocation of the license. The appellant argued against the order, citing non-provision of statements and cross-examination opportunities, along with delays in the proceedings.

2. The appellant contested the violation of provisions of Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004. The enquiry officer found the appellant to have breached various regulations. The appellant raised concerns about not being provided with statements and cross-examination opportunities, as well as delays in the proceedings. The appellant highlighted the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits under Regulation 22, citing relevant legal precedents to support their argument.

3. The issue of non-adherence to prescribed time limits in the proceedings was a crucial aspect of the appeal. The appellant argued that there were significant delays in the enquiry process and the issuance of the impugned order, exceeding the prescribed time limits under CHALR / CBLR. Legal references, including decisions from various High Courts, emphasized the importance of strictly following the time limits prescribed in the regulations. The delay beyond the specified limits rendered the impugned order legally unsustainable, leading to its set aside.

4. The merits of the case regarding the penalty imposed and the settlement by the main importer were also discussed. The penalty imposed under the Customs Act, 1962 against the appellant was set aside in a previous appellate order. The appellant contended that the reasons analyzed in the appellate order were applicable to the proceedings under CHALR 2004. The arguments presented by both sides were considered, and the impugned order was set aside, with the appeal being allowed based on the grounds of non-maintenance of time limits and implications of the settlement by the main importer.