2018 (1) TMI 1022 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - time limitation - Held that - the inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner / Deputy Commissioner should be complete and the report should be submitted within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of notice under sub-Regulation (1) - In the present case, the inquiry report was submitted much after 5 months of issue of SCN. It has been consistently held by Hon ble Delhi High Court as well as Hon ble Madras High Court that the time prescribed under the Regulation are to be strictly followed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of proceedings under Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Licensed Customs Broker, challenged the order of revocation of their license by the Commissioner of Customs. The proceedings were initiated due to alleged violations in imports made by certain firms. The appellant argued that the proceedings were invalid as they exceeded the statutory time limit prescribed under Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013. The inquiry officer's report was submitted after a significant delay of almost 6 months from the issue of the show cause notice, which the appellant contended was a clear violation of the regulation.

The appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding the timeliness of the proceedings resulting in the revocation of their license. Regulation 20(5) mandates that the inquiry officer must submit the report within 90 days from the date of issuing the notice. However, in this case, the report was submitted after a delay of more than 5 months, which was undisputed. The Tribunal referred to various court decisions emphasizing the strict adherence to time limits prescribed in such regulations. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Madras High Court have consistently held that these time limits are mandatory and must be strictly followed.

The Tribunal noted that the impugned proceedings violated the prescribed time limit under the Regulations, which rendered them unsustainable. Citing the settled legal position, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order revoking the appellant's license. It also highlighted the recurring issue of non-adherence to time schedules by the Revenue in serious violation cases, leading to adverse decisions by the Tribunal and High Courts. The Tribunal urged the competent authority to ensure due compliance to address serious violations effectively and on merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order, and disposed of the stay and miscellaneous applications. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the order to the Chairperson of the CBEC for necessary action.