9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1236 - HC - CustomsFraudulent availment of drawback by exporting inferior and sub-standard quality readymade garments of different kinds through various bogus firms and by resorting to over invoicing of goods - Was the CESTAT is justified in directing the concerned Authority to issue a SCN within 15 days for complete the proceeding within the prescribed time of three months, notwithstanding the CBLR 2013? Held that - After the suspension order was affirmed in terms of Regulation 19 of the CBLR 2013 by order dated 27th September 2016, no steps were taken by the Respondent in terms of Regulation 20 of the CBLR 2013. This required a SCN to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. In the present case, the SCN was issued only subsequent to the impugned order of the CESTAT on 30th April 2017. It is held that CESTAT was in error in directing the authorities to issue SCN within 15 days and complete the investigation within a further period of three months thereafter contrary to the CBLR 2013. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013 regarding the issuance of show cause notice within a specified time frame. 2. Validity of suspension of Customs Broker license based on alleged violations. 3. Jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to extend time limits set under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013. Issue 1: Interpretation of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013 regarding the issuance of show cause notice within a specified time frame: The appeal addressed the question of whether CESTAT was justified in directing the concerned Authority to issue a show cause notice within 15 days to complete proceedings within the prescribed three months, contrary to the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013 (CBLR 2013). The Appellant, a Customs Broker, was under investigation for alleged violations related to fraudulent exports. The suspension of the Appellant's license was confirmed by the Commissioner of Customs, leading to an appeal before CESTAT. CESTAT's order to expedite the show cause notice issuance and investigation timeline was challenged, arguing that CESTAT exceeded its jurisdiction by extending the time limits set under CBLR 2013. The Court held that CESTAT's direction was erroneous, emphasizing the sanctity of the time limits under CBLR 2013 and citing previous legal precedents to support its decision. Issue 2: Validity of suspension of Customs Broker license based on alleged violations: The case involved the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiating an investigation into alleged fraudulent exports by certain individuals, including the Appellant, a Customs Broker. The DRI's findings led to the suspension of the Appellant's license by the Commissioner of Customs for violations of CBLR 2013. The Appellant challenged this suspension, leading to the appeal before CESTAT. The Court noted that after the suspension order was confirmed, the Respondent failed to take necessary steps within the stipulated time frame under CBLR 2013, highlighting a lack of action on the part of the authorities. The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the impugned order of CESTAT and allowing the appeal without costs. Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) to extend time limits set under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013: One of the key issues was whether CESTAT had the authority to extend the time limits prescribed under CBLR 2013 for issuing a show cause notice and completing investigations. The Appellant argued that CESTAT overstepped its jurisdiction by granting additional time to the Respondent to conclude the investigation. The Court agreed with the Appellant's position, citing various legal decisions to emphasize the importance of adhering to the time limits set under CBLR 2013. The Court's decision highlighted the necessity of following regulatory time frames and set aside CESTAT's direction to issue the show cause notice and complete the investigation within specified time limits, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellant. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Court's decision on each aspect of the case.
|
