9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (8) TMI 204 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA licence - limitation prescribed by CBLR 2013 - SCN for enquiry has been initiated on 20/04/2017 i.e. after two year of receipt of the offence report - Held that - Time is essence to complete proceeding initiated under the CBLR 2013 - Hon ble High Court of Madras analysing the basic provisions relating to limitation, in the judgment of Saro International Freight System v. Commissioner of Customs 2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT came to the conclusion in para 23 to 28 of the judgment that adherence to the time-limit prescribed by the CBLR 2013 was mandatory - It is the anxiety of the Court that when the limitation prescribed by Regulation is not followed, that causes prejudice to the interest of justice. The date-chart depicted at the outset inevitably leads to the conclusion that after more than a year of receipt of offence report proceedings against the CHA having been initiated, dehors the law, action of the authority shall be said to be an empty formality and shall not see the light of the day. Order of suspension is revoked - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of Customs Broker License 2. Adherence to Time-Limit Prescribed by CBLR 2013 3. Validity of Show Cause Notice Issued After Two Years Detailed Analysis: 1. Suspension of Customs Broker License: The primary issue in this case revolves around the suspension of the Customs Broker License. The appellant provided a detailed date and event chart, which was undisputed by the Revenue, depicting the sequence of events leading to the suspension of the license. Key dates include the filing of four Bills of Entry on 10/02/2016, the search of the Customs House Agent's (CHA) office on 12/02/2016, and the eventual suspension of the license on 06/05/2016. The Tribunal noted that the law came into motion for the suspension of the CHA license soon after the receipt of the offence report on 04/04/2016. 2. Adherence to Time-Limit Prescribed by CBLR 2013: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limits prescribed by the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR) 2013. The Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in the judgment of Saro International Freight System v. Commissioner of Customs, underscored that the time limits prescribed by CBLR 2013 are mandatory. The Tribunal reproduced relevant paragraphs from the High Court's judgment, highlighting that the regulations are not merely directory but mandatory, given the severe consequences of non-compliance, such as the revocation of the license. 3. Validity of Show Cause Notice Issued After Two Years: The Tribunal noted that the show cause notice for enquiry was initiated on 20/04/2017, which was more than a year after the receipt of the offence report on 04/04/2016. This delay contravenes the mandatory time limits prescribed by CBLR 2013. The Tribunal referred to the High Court's judgment, which stated that the time limit for issuing a show cause notice is within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. The Tribunal concluded that the proceedings initiated after more than a year were "dehors the law," rendering the authority's action an "empty formality." Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the failure to adhere to the mandatory time limits prescribed by the 2013 Regulations prejudiced the interest of justice. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the order of suspension was revoked. The Tribunal's decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with the prescribed time limits to ensure swift and just action against Customs Brokers. (Dictated & Pronounced in the Open Court)
|
