2017 (5) TMI 879 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA licence - the appellant claims that the time limits strictly prescribed under CBLR 2013 for issuance of SCN is contravened - The adjudicating authority has issued the show cause notice under CBLR 2013 on 19/11/2015 after a gap of more than three months from the date of receipt of Offence Report - Held that - Regulation 20(1) contemplates issue of Show Cause Notice to the customs broker by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of Offence Report. The issue of SCN 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 SCN under Regulation 20 has been issued only on 19.11.2015 even though the Offence Report was received by the Commissioner of Customs Delhi on 10.03.2015. Ninety days period has already expired on 09.06.2015. Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. Vs. CC (Imports) Chennai 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT has held that the whole proceedings are to be commenced within a time limit and also concluded within a time frame. The order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule is liable to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the order on merit and time limit contravention under CBLR 2013.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the order by the Commissioner Customs (General) following an investigation into mis-declaration and undervaluation of goods by the importer, represented by the Customs Broker. The disciplinary proceedings resulted in the suspension and subsequent revocation of the broker's license, along with forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant contested the order on grounds of contravention of time limits set by CBLR 2013, arguing that the Show Cause Notice was issued after a significant delay from the date of the alleged offense report, challenging the validity of the order.

The appellant claimed that the initial intimation of the offense by the Deputy Commissioner should be considered the offense report, dated 10.03.2015. However, the respondent argued that the offense crystallized only after the investigation's conclusion and the issuance of the show cause notice on 09.11.2015, which was later forwarded to the Commissioner on 05.04.2016. The dispute centered around the interpretation of the offense report's date and its implications on the subsequent procedural timelines under CBLR 2013.

The Tribunal highlighted the strict time limits outlined in CBLR 2013 for various stages of disciplinary proceedings against Customs Brokers. It was noted that the Show Cause Notice should have been issued within 90 days of the offense report's receipt, followed by the submission of the Inquiry Report and the final order within specified timeframes. The appellant's counsel pointed out the delay in issuing the Show Cause Notice, which had already exceeded the prescribed period, citing legal precedents emphasizing the mandatory nature of adherence to time limits under the regulations.

Citing judgments by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and previous Tribunal decisions, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the prescribed time limits under CBLR 2013. Relying on legal precedents and the strict interpretation of procedural timelines, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order due to non-compliance with the specified time limits, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.