9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 347 - HC - CustomsRevokation of Custom Broker licence - Importation of components of DVD players using various IECs at highly undervalued price - Revenue submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the SCN was not issued within 90 days of the receipt of the offence report as mandated by the Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013, the period during which the suspension of the CB licence was operational and the time taken in forwarding the DRI s report to the New Delhi Commissionerate should be excluded for the purpose of computation of the period of limitation. Held that - the Court is unable to agree with the above submission. As already held by this Court in several orders including the recent order of this Court in the case of HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (General) 2016 (5) TMI 1238 - DELHI HIGH COURT , the time limit specified in Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013 is sacrosanct, i.e., the SCN had to be issued to the Petitioner within ninety days from the date of the receipt of the offence report. It is plain that the SCN was issued for the purpose of revocation of the CB licence of the Respondent and was not issued within 90 days of the date of receipt of the offence report which admittedly in this case is 7th October 2013. The question of exclusion of the period during which the suspension of the licence continued is not contemplated in Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013. If there are no grounds for revocation of licence then obviously the suspension cannot be maintained. Consequently, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the CESTAT which calls for interference. - Decided against the revenue
Issues:
Challenge to order revoking Custom Broker license based on delay in issuing show cause notice. Analysis: The appeal before the Delhi High Court challenged the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal's order setting aside the revocation of the Respondent's Custom Broker license by the Commissioner of Customs. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence reported the Respondent's alleged undervalued importation of DVD player components, leading to the suspension and subsequent revocation of the license. The show cause notice was issued after a significant delay, not meeting the 90-day requirement from the receipt of the offense report as per Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR 2013). The Appellant argued that the time during the license suspension and the delay in forwarding the DRI's report should be excluded from the computation of the limitation period for issuing the show cause notice. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing the sacrosanct nature of the 90-day limit under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR 2013. The Court cited previous judgments to support the strict adherence to the prescribed timeline for issuing show cause notices in such cases. Since the show cause notice was not issued within 90 days of receiving the offense report, the delay was deemed a legal infirmity. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose for determination, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the application. The judgment upheld the decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to statutory timelines in matters concerning the revocation of licenses.
|
