2016 (8) TMI 140 - AT - Customs

Revocation of license - forfeiture of ₹ 20,000/- from the security deposit furnished by M/s.Geo Cargo Express - Held that - it is clear that time limits prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 have been violated. Regulation 22 (1) stipulates that, the Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs House Agent within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report - Decided in favor of CHA and against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal by Revenue against the order forfeiting security deposit.
2. Appeal by M/s. Geo Cargo Express to set aside the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The case involved two appeals, one by the Revenue and the other by M/s. Geo Cargo Express, against the same order-in-original by the Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner had ordered the forfeiture of &8377; 20,000 from the security deposit of M/s. Geo Cargo Express. The Revenue appealed for revocation of the license, while M/s. Geo Cargo Express sought to set aside the order. The appeals were heard, and the facts revealed that M/s. Geo Cargo Express, a Customs House Agent (CHA), was involved in handling documentation for certain imports leading to investigations and subsequent proceedings against them for non-payment of anti-dumping duty due to mis-declaration of goods. The Commissioner decided to forfeit a portion of the security deposit but did not revoke the license, leading to appeals from both parties.

2. Upon examination, it was found that the actions taken by the Licensing Authority, including the issuance of show cause notices and inquiry reports, violated the time limits specified under the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004. The chronology of events demonstrated that the time limits prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 were not adhered to. The show cause notice was issued over a year after the offense report, and the inquiry report was submitted after a significant delay as well. The Tribunal emphasized that these time limits were mandatory and non-compliance rendered the actions without jurisdiction. Legal principles established by the Madras High Court were cited, emphasizing the mandatory nature of such time limits, with references to relevant case law supporting the same.

3. Considering the serious legal infirmities due to the non-adherence of prescribed time limits, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order could not be sustained on this ground alone. As a result, the appeal by M/s. Geo Cargo Express was allowed, while the Revenue's appeal was rejected. The stay application by the Revenue was also disposed of accordingly. The judgment was delivered on 27.07.2016 by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, with detailed analysis and references to legal principles governing the matter.