2017 (5) TMI 1007 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - inordinate delay in completion of the process of revocation of the license - 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-CHA.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in completion of revocation process of customs broker license.
2. Compliance with time-frame stipulated in Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.
3. Impact of delay on disciplinary action against customs broker.
4. Applicability of time-lines inserted in the Regulations.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was the delay in completing the revocation process of a customs broker license. The appeal was filed against the order of revocation issued by the Commissioner of Customs, which was challenged due to the inordinate delay of 2215 days in completing the proceedings, contrary to the stipulated 270 days as per the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004.

2. The delay was further highlighted in the proceedings initiated against the appellant for facilitating illicit export of goods. The delay in submission of the inquiry report and disposal of the report by the licensing authority was considered unjustified, as it exceeded the stipulated time frames prescribed in the regulations.

3. The argument presented by the Authorized Representative that the time-frame stipulated in the regulations is directory and not mandatory was countered by citing various decisions. The appellant emphasized the importance of complying with the time-frame stipulated in the regulations for the proceedings to be legally valid. The Tribunal also noted the requirement to comply with timelines in previous judgments.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and precedents, held that the inordinate delay in completing the inquiry proceedings had vitiated the action taken 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. It was clarified that the propriety and proportionality of the penalties imposed were not examined due to the focus on the delay issue.

In conclusion, the appeal was allowed, and the judgment emphasized the significance of adhering to the prescribed time frames in regulatory proceedings concerning customs broker licenses.