2018 (5) TMI 841 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - case of appellant-CHA is that proceedings initiated by the SCN dated 23/08/2017 was time barred for violation of Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 - Held that - Regulation 20 has prescribed the time limit of 90 days for issue of SCN to the Custom Broker for taking as any disciplinary action against the Custom Broker. In the present case the alleged offence has been taken cognizance of by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the Order-in-Original dated 28/04/2017 in which the alleged customs offence was adjudicated and decided. Hence this is to be regarded as the Offence Report and the period of 90 days from the date of such order would expire towards the end of month of July, 2017. Since the SCN has been issued beyond the period of 90 days, i.e. on 23/08/2017, the proceedings initiated are hit by time bar specifically provided in Regulation 20. It is settled law that the time limit prescribed in the CBLR 2013 for are sacrosanct and cannot be violated. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time-barred proceedings initiated against the appellant for revocation of Customs Broker License.
2. Justification of revocation of the Customs Broker License.
3. Interpretation of Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 regarding the time limit for issuing show cause notice.
4. Adjudication based on Order-in-Original dated 28/04/2017.
5. Compliance with the time limit prescribed in CBLR 2013.
6. Precedents from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court regarding time limits in CBLR 2013.

Issue 1: Time-barred proceedings for revocation of Customs Broker License
The appellant, a Customs Broker, appealed against the revocation of their license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The proceedings were initiated through a show cause notice dated 23/08/2017, which the appellant argued was time-barred under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. The appellant contended that the show cause notice was based on an Order-in-Original dated 28/04/2017, making the initiation beyond the 90-day limit specified in the regulation.

Issue 2: Justification of revocation of the Customs Broker License
The appellant's advocate argued that the revocation of the Customs Broker License was not justified on merits. The impugned order revoked the license and ordered the forfeiture of the security deposit. However, the appellant challenged the validity of this decision, leading to the appeal.

Issue 3: Interpretation of Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013
The advocate for the appellant contended that the show cause notice issued on 23/08/2017 was beyond the permissible time limit as per Regulation 20. The regulation mandates a 90-day period for issuing show cause notices for disciplinary actions against Customs Brokers. The appellant's argument was based on the date of the Order-in-Original as the starting point for calculating this period.

Issue 4: Adjudication based on Order-in-Original dated 28/04/2017
The proceedings against the appellant were initiated based on an Order-in-Original dated 28/04/2017, where the alleged customs offense was adjudicated. This date was crucial in determining the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant under the CBLR, 2013.

Issue 5: Compliance with time limits in CBLR 2013
The Tribunal noted that the time limit prescribed in CBLR 2013 is sacrosanct and cannot be violated. The proceedings in this case were found to be time-barred due to the issuance of the show cause notice beyond the 90-day period specified in Regulation 20. As a result, the impugned order revoking the license was set aside.

Issue 6: Precedents from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court
The Tribunal referred to decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in cases like Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. and Overseas Air Cargo Services, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the time limits prescribed in CBLR 2013. These precedents supported the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment covers all the issues involved in the case, highlighting the arguments presented, the regulatory provisions considered, and the legal precedents cited in reaching the final decision.