2016 (12) TMI 1436 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - period of limitation - Held that - The issue of Show Cause Notice is to be followed within a period of 90 days by submission of Inquiry Report by Asst. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner and ultimate passing of the order by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of Inquiry report - the initial Show Cause Notice under Regulation 20 has been issued on 14.09.2012, even though the licence was suspended on 15.02.2010. In a number of decisions, adherence to time limit strictly has been held - reliance placed on the case of Saro International Freight System Vs. CC, Chennai 2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where Hon ble Madras High Court has emphasised the observance of time limits strictly under the CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013. The order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule is liable to be set aside on these grounds - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-CHA.

Summary

Issues:
- Challenge against the order revoking CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit.
- Appellant's arguments on time limit and merit.
- Compliance with time limits under CBLR, 2013.
- Interpretation of regulations regarding suspension and revocation of license.
- Observance of time limits strictly under CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013.
- Precedents emphasizing mandatory adherence to prescribed time limits.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit due to alleged irregularities committed by the appellant in the Air Cargo Complex. The appellant challenged the order on grounds of time limit and merit. The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Customs failed to strictly observe the time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013. Additionally, the appellant denied contravening the provisions of CBLR, 2013.

Under CBLR, 2013, Regulation 19 empowers the Commissioner to suspend a custom broker, with Regulation 20 outlining the procedure to be followed. The time schedules prescribed under CBL Regulations, 2013 are crucial, with specific periods allocated for various actions such as issuance of show cause notice, preparation of inquiry report, and passing of orders. The importance of adhering to these time limits was highlighted in the case law cited, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the prescribed time frames.

The Tribunal noted that the initial show cause notice was issued significantly later than the suspension of the license, indicating a failure to comply with the prescribed time limits. Citing decisions by the Hon'ble High Court and previous Tribunal rulings, it was established that strict adherence to the time limits under CBLR, 2013 is mandatory. The Tribunal found that the lower authority's order, issued without adhering to the time schedule, was liable to be set aside. Consequently, the impugned order revoking the license and forfeiting the security deposit was overturned, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the judgment focused on the importance of complying with the time limits set forth in the regulations governing the suspension and revocation of CHA licenses. The decision underscored the mandatory nature of these time frames, emphasizing the need for procedural adherence in such matters.