2018 (4) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Time limitation - revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - even though the Enquiry Report was submitted on 25/01/2017, the Adjudicating Authority passed this order only on 26/09/2017 i.e. after the mandatory time limit of 90 days - Held that - it has been consistently held by the Hon ble High Courts as well as Tribunals that violation of the time limits strictly specified in the CBLR as well as the successor Regulations are to be viewed seriously. The adjudicating authority has passed the impugned order without strictly following the time limits specified in the Customs Brokers License Regulations, 2013 - impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of time limits specified in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) for passing orders by the Licensing Authority.

Analysis:
The judgment involved a case where the Licensing Authority had revoked a Customs Brokers Licence due to the appellant's involvement in attempting to export contraband. The main issue challenged in the appeal was the delay in passing the order beyond the specified time limits set in the CBLR. The appellant argued that the order was passed after the mandatory 90-day period following the receipt of the Enquiry Report, rendering it unsustainable. The appellant cited various decisions emphasizing that a violation of the time limits would make the revocation order invalid, as seen in cases like Lohia Travels & Cargo Vs. CC (General), New Delhi and Patriot Freight Logistics System vs. CC, Chennai. The appellant contended that the delay in passing the order was not justified and should lead to setting aside the impugned order.

The respondent, on the other hand, justified the delay in passing the order by explaining that the transfer of the incumbent Commissioner caused the delay, which was beyond their control. However, the appellant argued that such delays should not be excused, especially when strict time limits are prescribed in the regulations. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal found that the impugned order was indeed passed beyond the stipulated 90-day period, as required by Regulation 20(7) of the CBLR. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions highlighting the importance of adhering to time limits in such cases and the consequences of non-compliance.

The Tribunal also noted contradictions in the original authority's findings regarding the inquiry report and its relevance to the case. Despite agreeing with the appellant's argument about the inquiry report's nature, the original authority proceeded to base the decision on it, leading to further inconsistency. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was issued in violation of the provisions of the CBLR, making it legally unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, leading to the disposal of the appeals against the suspension of the appellant's licence. The judgment emphasized the significance of adhering to the prescribed time limits in regulatory frameworks like the CBLR to ensure the legality and validity of administrative decisions.