9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 308 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA License - SCN for enquiry has been initiated on 03/08/2016 i.e. after five months and 20 days 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 that adherence to the time-limit prescribed by the CBLR 2013 was mandatory - Analysing the 2013 Regulation, as well as the previous Regulation the Court held that time-limit prescribed in Regulation which empowers to take action under Regulation 18 has to follow the procedure under Rule 20 and the term shall used in such regulation should be read as mandatory and not directory. For the mandatory time limit prescribed by the Regulation, the proceedings not initiated nor concluded within the limitation shall be void. After more than five months 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. The order of suspension is revoked - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Compliance with time limits under the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR 2013). 2. Adherence to procedural requirements for revoking a Customs Broker license. 3. Impact of failure to initiate proceedings within the specified time frame. 4. Interpretation of the term "shall" in regulatory provisions. Issue 1: Compliance with Time Limits under CBLR 2013 The appellant presented a date chart detailing the sequence of events related to the suspension of a Customs Broker License, which was undisputed by the Revenue. The law mandated the suspension of the license upon the receipt of the offense report, initiating a time limit under the CBLR 2013. Issue 2: Adherence to Procedural Requirements Both parties acknowledged the initiation of a show cause notice for an inquiry after a significant delay from the receipt of the offense report. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of timely completion of proceedings under the CBLR 2013. Issue 3: Impact of Delay on Proceedings The Tribunal referenced a judgment emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits in subordinate legislation, specifically the CBLR 2013. Failure to adhere to these time limits could render proceedings void, as illustrated by the specific time periods prescribed for different stages of the process. Issue 4: Interpretation of "Shall" in Regulatory Provisions The Court analyzed the term "shall" in the regulations, concluding that it should be interpreted as mandatory rather than directory. This interpretation was crucial to ensure swift and accountable actions against Customs Brokers involved in unlawful activities, as outlined in Regulation 11 of the CBLR 2013. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, revoking the suspension order due to the contravention of the time limits prescribed by the CBLR 2013. The judgment underscored the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements and time limits in regulatory frameworks governing Customs Broker licenses to uphold justice and accountability.
|
