2017 (4) TMI 579 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - penalty - CHA-appellant failed to discharge his duty properly - time limitation - Held that - the appellants were issued with notice under Regulation 20 on 15.06.2015, whereas the Inquiry Officer submitted his report only on 30.09.2015, which is beyond the period of 90 days prescribed by the said Regulation, the time limit has not been adhered in completion of the inquiry - It has been consistently held by this Tribunal as well as by the various High Courts that the time limit specified in Regulation 20 of CBLR are required to be adhered to in exercising powers under the said Regulation - whole proceedings is without jurisdiction - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-CHA.

Summary

Issues involved: Violation of provisions of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation 2013 (CBLR) and Customs Act, 1962 leading to penalty imposition and security deposit forfeiture; Allegations of aiding and abetting in customs duty evasion; Non-adherence to time limits prescribed under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013.

Violation of Regulations and Customs Act:
The appellant, a customs broker, was penalized for not properly discharging duties while handling clearance of imported cargo, specifically swing needles, leading to alleged violations of CBLR, 2013 and Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner imposed a penalty and forfeited the security deposit based on findings of violations of various provisions. The inquiry report highlighted breaches of Regulations 11 and 17 of CBLR, 2013. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order by the Commissioner.

Non-adherence to Time Limits:
The appellant contended that the impugned order was issued in violation of CBLR, 2013 provisions and raised objections regarding the time limits prescribed under Regulation 20. The Tribunal noted that the Inquiry Officer submitted the report beyond the 90-day period stipulated in Regulation 20, rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction. Citing precedents, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of adhering to statutory time limits, making non-compliance invalidate the proceedings. Referring to relevant legal positions and court decisions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to the failure to adhere to the prescribed time limit, without delving into the merits of the case.

Conclusion:
Based on the established legal principles and precedents, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be legally unsustainable due to the Inquiry Officer's failure to submit the report within the prescribed time limit. Consequently, the order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to statutory time limits in such proceedings.