2016 (6) TMI 265 - AT - Customs

Period of limitation - Revokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit - Regulation 22 of the CHALR - Bill of Entry falsely filed in the name of Global Logic India Pvt. Ltd. - Huge loss caused to Government revenue by getting the importer s goods cleared duty free on the strength of fake and forged procurement certificates. Held that - the licensing authority has been apprised of the matter by the Commissioner of Customs, ICD through Order-in-original dated 5.7.2012. This may be practically considered as the offence report. The show cause notice proposing revocation has been issued on 30.1.2014, 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 27.2.2015, 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 34 months, which is much beyond the allowed total duration of nine months. Therefore, by following the various decisions of the Hon ble High Court directly dealing 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 liable to be set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
1. Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit.
2. Allegations of contravention of CHALR.
3. Compliance with time limits under CHALR.
4. Interpretation of the offense report and time limits under CHALR/CBLR.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs. The appellant was accused of serious irregularities related to improper import, leading to the suspension and subsequent revocation of the license. Both appeals were heard together and decided analogously.

2. The Commissioner of Customs initiated action against the appellant based on irregularities in filing Bill of Entry, leading to the suspension and revocation of the CHA license. The appellant challenged the order on both time limit and merits, denying the contravention of CHALR provisions.

3. The time limits under CHALR were crucial in this case. The appellant argued that the Commissioner failed to observe the prescribed time limits strictly. The show cause notice and inquiry report were not completed within the specified time frames, exceeding the total allowed duration significantly.

4. The interpretation of the offense report and adherence to time limits under CHALR/CBLR were pivotal. Citing relevant case laws, including decisions from the Hon'ble High Court and Tribunal, it was emphasized that the time limits prescribed in the regulations must be strictly followed. Failure to adhere to the time schedule mandated by the regulations led to setting aside the impugned order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order dated 11.5.2015 due to non-compliance with the time limits prescribed under the regulations, as highlighted in the relevant case laws and legal precedents. The importance of adhering to the specified time frames in such proceedings was underscored, leading to the decision in favor of the appellant.