9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1430 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - non-adherence of time limits in terms of Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 - Held that - admittedly, the enquiry report which is to be submitted within 90 days of issue of show cause notice in terms of Regulation 20 of CBLR has been submitted, in the present case, after 10 months. On this non-adherence of time limit alone the proceedings are to be held as invalid - by now, it is a well settled legal position that the time limits prescribed in the Regulations are mandatorily to be followed. Failure to adhere to the said time limits will make the proceedings without jurisdiction and invalid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of CHA-appellant.
Issues:
1. Validity of proceedings under CBLR, 2013 due to non-adherence to time limits. 2. Appeal against the order of forfeiture of security deposit from the CHA appellant. 3. Appeal by Revenue for revocation of Customs Broker License. Analysis: 1. The case involved an appeal by both the Custom House Agent (CHA) and the Revenue against the original order of the Commissioner of Customs. The CHA appellant was licensed for customs clearance but faced proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation 2004/Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR) 2013. The appeal focused on the CBLR proceedings, specifically the forfeiture of ?50,000 from the CHA's security deposit. The Revenue also appealed, arguing for the revocation of the Customs Broker License due to violations by the CHA/Broker. 2. The CHA appellant contended that the proceedings leading to the impugned order were legally unsustainable as they violated the provisions of CBLR, 2013. They highlighted Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013, which sets time limits for each stage of proceedings. The enquiry report should have been submitted within 90 days of issuing the show cause notice, but in this case, it was delayed by over 10 months. Citing various tribunal and high court decisions, the CHA argued that the delayed report rendered the proceedings invalid and beyond jurisdiction. 3. The Revenue defended the findings of the impugned order and pressed for the revocation of the license based on established violations by the CHA. The Revenue was dissatisfied with the Commissioner's decision not to act in line with the violations found. 4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, addressed the CHA's legal objection regarding the validity of the proceedings. Emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits in CBLR, the Tribunal cited previous decisions where non-adherence to time limits rendered proceedings invalid. Referring to specific cases, the Tribunal reiterated that statutory time limits must be strictly followed, and failure to do so would invalidate the proceedings. 5. Based on the settled legal position and the failure to adhere to the prescribed time limits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, concluding that it could not be legally sustained. Consequently, the appeal by the CHA appellant was allowed, and since the impugned order was overturned, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was made based on the non-compliance with time limits, highlighting the mandatory nature of such regulations in legal proceedings.
|
