9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (9) TMI 123 - AT - CustomsRestoration of CHA license - revocation in terms of the Regulation 22(7) of the Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations 2004 forfeiture of security amount - SCN under Regulation 22(1) ibid inquiry report to be submitted within 90 days of the SCN - CHA Regulation No. 22(5) Held that - Madras High Court in the case of A M Ahmad 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT in effect has clearly held that breach of the time limit prescribed in Regulation 22 is fatal to the order and set aside the order on that ground. The impugned order is unsustainable on account of time bar, as enquiry report submitted after prescribed time limitation Also, Allahabad High Court in the case of Commissioner vs Monsanto Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (4) TMI 505 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT decided that once it is held that the demand is time barred, there would be no occasion for the Tribunal to enquire into the merits of the case raised by Revenue impugned order set aside appeal disposed off decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security under Regulation 22(7) of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulations 2004 as amended; Breach of timeline under Regulation 22(1) and 22(5) of CHALR; Interpretation of mandatory timelines under CHALR regulations; Precedents set by Madras High Court and Delhi High Court regarding the significance of timelines in similar cases; Applicability of judgments by different High Courts on the mandatory nature of timelines. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the revocation of a CHA license and forfeiture of security by the Commissioner of Customs New Delhi. The appellant argued that the offense was not severe enough to warrant such actions. However, the timeline of events raised concerns. The inquiry report was submitted almost 2 years and 9 months after the issuance of the show cause notice (SCN), violating the 90-day timeline prescribed in Regulation 22(5) of CHALR. The appellant cited a Madras High Court judgment emphasizing the fatal nature of breaching timelines in such cases. The Departmental Representative acknowledged the breach of timelines but argued that, as per a Delhi High Court judgment, the timelines under CHALR were not mandatory. The Tribunal considered both arguments and analyzed the relevant regulations. It noted that Regulation 22(5) clearly mandated the submission of the inquiry report within 90 days of the SCN issuance, which was not followed in this case. The Tribunal distinguished between the timelines in CHALR and CBLR, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the former. Based on the analysis and the precedent set by the Madras High Court, which deemed the breach of timelines fatal to the order, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable due to the time bar. Citing an Allahabad High Court judgment, the Tribunal refrained from delving into the merits of the case once the demand was deemed time-barred. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision was based on the strict interpretation of the mandatory timelines under CHALR regulations, in line with the Madras High Court's precedent. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to prescribed timelines in administrative actions, ultimately leading to the revocation of the impugned order.
|
