2017 (5) TMI 935 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - inordinate delay in completion of the process of revocation of the license contrary to the time-frame prescribed in the Regulations - Held that - compliance with the time-frame stipulated in the Regulations is an essential pre-requisite for the proceedings to be accorded legality and sanctity - the inordinate delay in completing the inquiry proceedings has vitiated the detriment visited upon the appellant - the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit is held to be violative of the Regulations and is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Inordinate delay in completion of the process of revocation of the license.
2. Interpretation of the time-frame stipulated in the Regulations as mandatory or directory.
3. Compliance with the time-frame as a pre-requisite for legality of proceedings.
4. Impact of delay on disciplinary actions against customs brokers.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the revocation of a customs broker license due to the alleged facilitation of illicit export. The main issue raised was the inordinate delay in completing the revocation process, exceeding the stipulated time-frame of 270 days. The licensing authority received the offense report on 29th October 2013 but ordered revocation on 11th March 2015, taking 499 days. Despite the suspension of the license and charge-sheet issuance within the time-frame, the delay in submitting the inquiry report was contested by the appellant.

The contention regarding the time-frame being directory and not mandatory was raised, citing the peculiar circumstances causing delays. The argument was supported by a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, emphasizing that delays should not hinder disciplinary actions against errant customs brokers. However, the appellant relied on various decisions highlighting the importance of complying with the time-frame for the proceedings' legality and sanctity.

The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of adhering to the timelines, citing a previous case. It held that the delay in completing the inquiry proceedings invalidated the actions against the appellant. Consequently, the revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit were deemed violative of the Regulations, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order. The Tribunal clarified that it did not assess the propriety and proportionality of the penalties imposed by the licensing authority in this case.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment was pronounced on 18/04/2017.