2016 (12) TMI 890 - AT - Customs

Time bar - Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004 - The law prescribes that within 90 days of receipt of the offence report, the jurisdictional authority has to issue show cause notice - Held that - The time limit prescribed by law is mandatory and the appellant is not permitted to suffer in view of the decisions of the Tribunal. It may be appreciated that the Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of Saro International Freight Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , held that the impugned show cause notice issued by the respondent is without jurisdiction, as it has been issued beyond the period prescribed in the regulations, which have statutory force and hence, not sustainable. In view of the fragrant violation of the provision of the law, the impugned order is liable to be set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in issuance of show cause notice as per CHALR, 2004.
2. Delay in conducting enquiry and passing the revocation order.
3. Mandatory nature of time limits under CHALR, 2004.
4. Comparison of time limits under CHALR, 2004 and CBLR, 2013.
5. Interpretation of "shall" as "mandatory" in regulations.

Analysis:
1. The appellant raised a grievance regarding the delay in issuing the show cause notice by the Commissioner of Customs. Despite being suspended in July 2011, the notice was issued in May 2013, contravening Regulation 22(1) of CHALR, 2004, which mandates the notice to be issued within 90 days of receiving the offence report. The delay caused the appellant to suffer beyond the prescribed time limit.

2. Furthermore, an enquiry was conducted after the delayed notice, with the report submitted after 10 months, contrary to rule 22(5) of CHALR. Subsequently, the revocation order was passed after eleven months, violating rule 22(7) of CHALR. The Tribunal emphasized that the time limits set by law are mandatory, citing various decisions to support this stance.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the mandatory nature of time limits prescribed by law and the appellant's right not to suffer due to delays in proceedings. The judgments referred to underscored the significance of adhering to statutory time limits to ensure fairness and efficiency in the adjudication process.

4. A comparison was drawn between the time limits under CHALR, 2004 and CBLR, 2013, emphasizing the necessity of setting specific timeframes for completing proceedings. The Tribunal referenced a High Court judgment to explain the evolution of regulations and the shift towards incorporating time limits to streamline regulatory actions.

5. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was liable to be set aside due to the blatant violation of legal provisions regarding time limits. By declaring the order invalid, the Tribunal upheld the mandatory nature of time limits in regulatory frameworks, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.