9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 754 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - time limit as prescribed in Regulation 22 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation(CHALR), 2004 - Held that - Regulation 20(5) provides the preparation of report by the enquiry officer within 90 days from the date of issuance of the notice under Regulation 20(1) of Customs Brokers Licensing (Amendment) Regulations (CBLR), 2013. In the present case, the enquiry officer has taken 8 months - Further, Regulation 20(7) provides that the Commissioner of Customs may pass the order within 90 days from the date of submission of the enquiry report. But, in the present case, it has taken 24(twenty four) months. The Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Shipping Agency V. Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata 2016 (12) TMI 889 - CESTAT KOLKATA on the identical issue allowed the appeal of the Customs House Agent and held that The time limit prescribed by law is mandatory and the appellant is not permitted to suffer. The legislature has prescribed the time limit for taking steps in each and every stage as prescribed in the sub-Regulations of Regulation 22. The Commissioner of Customs cannot ignore such time limit without assigning any reason or in an unusual situation. In the present case, there is no material on record for contravention of the provisions of the law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Revocation of Customs House Agents (CHA) licence. 2. Forfeiture of the security deposit. 3. Violation of time limits prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Revocation of Customs House Agents (CHA) Licence: The appellant's CHA licence was revoked under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation (CHALR), 2004, following an investigation by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) which revealed fraudulent export activities by M/s. Sungrowth Exports Pvt. Ltd. The appellant's name appeared on the Bills of Export, leading to the suspension of their licence. The Tribunal had previously set aside this suspension on 16.01.2006. Despite this, the Commissioner of Customs revoked the licence based on an enquiry report, prompting the present appeal. 2. Forfeiture of the Security Deposit: Alongside the revocation of the CHA licence, the security deposit provided by the appellant was forfeited. This action was part of the final order issued by the Commissioner of Customs on 23.03.2012. 3. Violation of Time Limits Prescribed Under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004: The appellant argued that the entire proceeding was initiated in gross violation of the time limits prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. Regulation 22 mandates specific time frames for various procedural steps, such as issuing a notice within ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report and completing the enquiry within ninety days from the issuance of the show-cause notice. The Tribunal had previously set aside similar revocations in identical situations, as seen in the case of Hindustan Shipping Agency v. Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata. The appellant's counsel highlighted that the enquiry officer took eight months instead of the mandated ninety days, and the final order took twenty-four months instead of the prescribed nine months. Tribunal’s Observations: The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Customs issued the initial notice on 22.06.2005, and despite the Tribunal's order dated 19.01.2006, the licence was suspended again on 16.02.2009. Another notice for revocation was issued on 30.08.2010. The entire case was based on fraudulent export activities in 2001-02, with the final order passed on 23.03.2012, thus violating the time limits of Regulation 22. Legal Precedents and Tribunal’s Decision: The Tribunal referenced several decisions, including the case of Hindustan Shipping Agency and others, which emphasized that the prescribed time limits are mandatory. The Tribunal also cited the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in Saro International Freight Systems Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, which held that the time limits prescribed in the regulations are mandatory. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Customs could not ignore the prescribed time limits without valid reasons. The impugned order violated the principles of law as established by previous judicial decisions, including the Privy Council’s ruling in Nazir Ahmed vs. King Emperor. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. Final Order: The appeal was allowed, and the revocation of the CHA licence and forfeiture of the security deposit were set aside. The operative part of the order was pronounced in the open court.
|
