2018 (5) TMI 1070 - AT - Customs

Validity of SCN - Time limitation - Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR 2013 - penalty - the time limits specified under Regulation 20(1) as well as Regulation 20(7) has not been complied with. Held that - The more significant issue to be considered is whether the proceedings initiated under CBLR 2013 will be vitiated if the time limits are not strictly observed - it was seen that the proceedings cannot be held to be vitiated only for the reason that the time limits specified in the CBLR 2013 have not been strictly observed. Penalty - Held that - the CHA has filed the shipping bills on the basis of the documents made available to him by the exporter. In the facts and circumstances of the case there is nothing on record to hold that the appellant/CHA was aware of the mis-declaration and over-valuation of the goods in the export consignment - penalty not warranted. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Restoration of appeal after dismissal for default.
2. Challenge to penalty imposition under CBLR 2013 based on time bar and merit.
3. Interpretation of time limits under CBLR 2013 as mandatory or directory.
4. Merits of the case regarding alleged violations in filing shipping bills.

Analysis:

1. The appellant filed for restoration of appeal after it was dismissed for default in connection with Final Order NO.50169/2017. The application for restoration was granted, and the appeal was heard on merit with the agreement of both sides.

2. The appellant challenged the penalty imposed under CBLR 2013, citing time bar issues and merit concerns. The Licensing Authority allegedly violated the time limit of 90 days for issuing show cause notice after receiving the offence report. Additionally, the time limit of 90 days from the inquiry officer's report to the order-in-original was exceeded. The appellant argued that the proceedings should be set aside on these grounds.

3. The discussion revolved around whether the time limits specified under CBLR 2013 are mandatory or directory. The Tribunal referred to a Kolkata High Court case where it was held that such time limits are to be construed as directory rather than mandatory. The Tribunal concluded that non-compliance with these time limits does not vitiate the proceedings.

4. On the merits of the case, the appellant was accused of over-valuing goods in shipping bills to claim ineligible benefits. The inquiry report exonerated the appellant, but the Licensing Authority disagreed, alleging failure to verify exporter antecedents. However, it was found that the appellant filed the bills based on documents provided by the exporter, without knowledge of mis-declaration. Consequently, the penalty imposition was deemed unjustified, and the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.

This detailed analysis covers the restoration of appeal, challenges to penalty imposition, interpretation of time limits under CBLR 2013, and the merits of the case regarding alleged violations in filing shipping bills.