9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 398 - AT - CustomsPeriod of limitation - Revokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit - recall of the container of Red Sander logs from Dubai - Held that - the notice issued under Regulation 22 was beyond the period of 90 days from the date of offence report. As there is no specific offence report in the records, the evidence of knowledge of the concerned officer may be considered as per the Hon ble Madras High Court s observation in M/s. AM. Ahamed & Co. Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT . Further, decision on the show cause notice was taken more than 16 months after the issue which again is beyond the time limits mentioned in the said Regulation. As such without going into the merits of the case we find that the impugned order is not sustainable as the same is barred by limitation and consequently without jurisdiction. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues: Appeal against revocation of CHA license based on non-adherence to time limits under CHALR 2004.
Analysis: 1. Revocation of CHA License: The appeal challenges the revocation of the CHA license of the appellant by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bhopal, along with the forfeiture of deposits. The appellant, a Customs House Agent, was involved in handling customs clearances work of cargo in Bhopal and Indore Commissionerate. The proceedings were initiated based on intelligence investigations, leading to the recall of a container from Dubai. The appellant filed the shipping bill for the container, which resulted in prohibitions on conducting business in the respective Commissionerates. The Hon'ble High Court directed the appellant to file an appeal with the Tribunal. The impugned order revoking the license was issued on 10.12.2014. 2. Contentions of the Parties: The appellant contended that the revocation was unjustified and not in line with the relevant regulations. They argued that the proceedings were initiated without adhering to the time limits prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR 2004. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the appellant did not follow KYC norms and conducted customs clearance work without proper background verification. The respondent also claimed that the documents verified by the appellant were not genuine. 3. Adherence to Time Limits: The Tribunal examined whether the time limits prescribed by CHALR 2004 were followed in this case. Citing judicial pronouncements, it was noted that the time limits in the regulations are mandatory, and non-compliance renders the proceedings without jurisdiction. The Tribunal referred to a case where the High Court held that actions beyond the prescribed time limit would be barred by limitation and considered without jurisdiction. In the present case, it was found that the show cause notice for revocation of license was issued beyond the prescribed 90-day period from the date of the offense report, rendering the impugned order unsustainable and without jurisdiction. 4. Decision: The Tribunal, after examining the evidence and timelines of the case, concluded that the impugned order revoking the CHA license was barred by limitation and, therefore, without jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed on this ground, emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits under the regulations. The order was pronounced in the open court on 03.06.2016. This detailed analysis highlights the key aspects of the judgment, focusing on the revocation of the CHA license, contentions of the parties, and the crucial aspect of adherence to time limits under the relevant regulations, ultimately leading to the decision in favor of the appellant based on the non-compliance with the prescribed time limits.
|
