2016 (11) TMI 761 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - forgery of signature by employee of appellant of 2 Superintendent (Customs) in ICD Parparganj New Delhi as well as the signature of Shri Satish Kumar G-Card holder of the appellant - Held that - It is an admitted fact on record that from the date of the offence report and passing of the impugned order there is a gap of 340 days. With regard to the time limit the CBLR mandates that the proceedings for revocation of license shall be completed within 270 days (9 months) from the date of receipt of offence report. With regard to the time limit the Hon ble High Court in the case of Madras A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Chennai 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT have held that On the question that the first respondent is duty bound to initiate proceedings within 90 days from the date of receipt of offence report there are no two opinions at least before me. Therefore the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is of no assistance to the respondents. Since the impugned order was issued by the Commissioner without adhering to the time schedule prescribed in CBLR we are of the view that the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order dated 03.06.2016 of the Original Authority and allow the appeal in favour of the appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Continuation of suspension of CHA license
2. Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit
3. Adherence to time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the confirmation of the continuation of the suspension of the CHA license and the subsequent order for revocation of the license along with the forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant, a Customs broker, had his license suspended due to an employee's forgery of signatures. The Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH, New Delhi passed both orders leading to the present appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant's advocate argued that the Commissioner failed to adhere to the time limit prescribed under CBLR, 2013, requesting the setting aside of the order for revocation of the license. A detailed date chart was submitted, highlighting the sequence of events and the time taken for each step, showing a delay beyond the prescribed 270 days or 9 months.

3. The Revenue's representative reiterated the findings of the impugned orders. However, upon reviewing the case records, the Tribunal found a significant delay of 340 days between the submission of the offence report and the passing of the impugned order. Citing relevant legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the strict time schedule prescribed in the regulations. The Tribunal referenced judgments from the Hon'ble High Courts emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limits set by the CBLR, 2013.

4. Based on the analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order for revocation of the license was issued without adhering to the time schedule prescribed in the CBLR, 2013. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 03.06.2016 and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. As a result of setting aside the revocation order, the appeal against the order dated 31.07.2015 confirming the suspension of the license was deemed infructuous, leading to the dismissal of that appeal as well.

5. In the final disposition, both appeals were accordingly disposed of by the Tribunal. The judgment highlighted the significance of complying with the time limits set by the regulations in matters concerning the revocation of licenses, emphasizing the mandatory nature of such provisions in ensuring procedural fairness and efficiency in administrative actions.