2016 (6) TMI 505 - HC - Customs

Period of limitation - SCN issued beyond the mandatory period of 90 days from the date of the receipt of the offence report - Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013 - Revokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of bank guarantee - Held that - it is plain that the SCN issued on 17th June 2014 under the CBLR 2013 was well beyond the period of 90 days from 25th October 2013. In light of the legal position explained by this Court in HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs (General) 2016 (5) TMI 1238 - DELHI HIGH COURT the time limit as prescribed in Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR 2013 is sacrosanct and the failure to adhere to the said time limit would invalidate any action taken against the Petitioner in terms of Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General) revoking the licence of the Petitioner and forfeiting the whole amount of the bank guarantee furnished is hereby set aside. - Decided in favour of petitioner

Summary

Issues:
1. Non-receipt of order revoking Custom's Broker license.
2. Issuance of show-cause notice beyond the mandatory period.
3. Interpretation of the offense report date for Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013.
4. Adherence to the time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner claimed non-receipt of the order revoking their Custom's Broker license, arguing that despite a change in address, the order was dispatched to the previous address. The petitioner contended that the Department had knowledge of the address change, as evidenced by previous communications being received at the updated address. This discrepancy raised doubts about the validity of the revocation order.

2. During the hearing, it was revealed that the show-cause notice leading to the impugned order was issued beyond the mandatory 90-day period from the offense report receipt date, as required by Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2013 (CBLR 2013). The petitioner highlighted that the notice was issued after the prescribed period, casting doubt on the procedural compliance.

3. The absence of any reference to the offense report in the show-cause notice dated 17th June 2014 led to the interpretation that the offense report date should be considered as 25th October 2013, when the SCN under the Customs Act, 1962 was issued. This interpretation was accepted, and it was acknowledged that the issuance of the SCN under CBLR 2013 exceeded the stipulated timeframe from the offense report date.

4. Citing a previous legal position established in HLPL Global Logistics Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Customs, the Court emphasized the sacrosanct nature of the time limit prescribed in Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013. Any failure to adhere to this time limit was deemed to invalidate actions taken against the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order revoking the license and forfeiting the bank guarantee was set aside, affirming the importance of procedural compliance and adherence to statutory timelines.

5. The judgment concluded by allowing the petition in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order, and declaring no costs to be awarded in the matter. This comprehensive analysis highlights the significance of procedural regularity and adherence to statutory timelines in administrative actions, emphasizing the protection of procedural rights and due process in regulatory proceedings.