9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 4 - AT - CustomsRestoration of CHA licence - time limitations - there was inordinate delay about 3 to 4 years in processing the actions in CBLR, 2013 and CHALR, 2004 - the Bench seeks to understand if this is an exceptional case or such delays are happening as a matter of routine in total disregard of Regulation and CBE&C instructions - There are various decisions which hold that the time limits prescribed under the regulations are not directory but mandatory. There are some decisions otherwise too. In similar circumstances, earlier in the case of Skylark Travel Pvt. Ltd. 2016 (4) TMI 186 - CESTAT MUMBAI , wherein delay of 4 years had occurred, the Bench had sought data to ascertain if delays are regular or exceptional. The said data was not provided for a period of almost four months. The matter was heard on 23.11.2015, the Bench waited for four months for the data, however order pronounced on 22.03.2016. The order had to be passed without the benefit of the said data. There is an obvious resistance to providing the data. This creates a suspicion. It is obvious that some Customs Brokers suffer on account of such delays and some get benefit on account of such delays. Some custom broker, who have not committed any serious fraud and who ought not to be punished, get out of work for long periods during which the proceeding are delayed - In either case, it is bad for the system. It is in this context, the CBEC has issued the circulars dated 8.4.2010 - In exercise of powers under CESTAT Procedure Rule, 1982, we direct the Revenue to present the data regarding observation of various time limits prescribed under regulations. This data may be given in respect of cases taken up or pending in the Mumbai Customs since the amendment made by N/N. 30/2010-cus dated 8.4.2010 till 30.6.2016. The respondents are directed to produce the said data on 23.8.2016 at the time of next hearing. - Matter adjourned.
Issues:
1. Inordinate delay in the processes related to Custom Broker license revocation. 2. Adherence to time limits prescribed in Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) and Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR). 3. Identification of delays in various cases and the impact on Customs Brokers. 4. Resistance in providing data on delays and its implications on the system. Detailed Analysis: 1. The appellant, M/s Maa Krupa Forwarders Ltd., appealed against the revocation of their Custom Broker license by Revenue, highlighting the inordinate delay in the processes. The delay of about 3 to 4 years in processing actions under CBLR, 2013 and CHALR, 2004 was noted, indicating a lack of adherence to prescribed time limits in the law and instructions. The Tribunal observed that such delays were not exceptional but rather routine, raising concerns about the disregard for regulations and instructions governing the process. 2. The Tribunal delved into the issue of time limits prescribed in the CHALR, 2004 and CBLR, 2013, emphasizing the mandatory nature of these time limits. Citing the case of Lohia Travels and Cargo, it was noted that the total duration prescribed by law for completing the process was 270 days, without provision for time extensions. The Tribunal highlighted the consistent non-adherence to these time limits in various cases, with appellants often raising arguments based on limitation grounds. 3. The Tribunal further discussed the impact of delays on Customs Brokers, citing the case of Skylark Travel Pvt. Ltd. where a delay of 4 years had occurred. The resistance in providing data on delays raised suspicions of deliberate delays benefiting certain brokers while causing harm to others. The Tribunal emphasized the need for data on adherence to time limits and directed the Revenue to present such data for cases taken up or pending in Mumbai Customs from a specified period, highlighting the importance of addressing delays to maintain the integrity of the system. 4. The resistance in providing data on delays was viewed as problematic, raising concerns about potential deliberate delays benefiting certain Customs Brokers. The Tribunal stressed the significance of addressing delays promptly to ensure fair treatment and prevent any misuse of the system. By directing the Revenue to present data on adherence to time limits, the Tribunal aimed to shed light on the extent of delays and their impact on Customs Brokers, emphasizing the importance of upholding regulatory time frames for a transparent and efficient process.
|
