2018 (6) TMI 655 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - time limitation under Regulation 19 of CBLR, 2013 not followed - Held that - The time limit prescribed by CBLR have not been followed in so much as the offence report was recorded on 03.05.2016 and the licence was suspended on 20.05.2016 wherein further order of suspension was issued on 15.06.2016 but the impugned order was issued on 07.12.2017 - The time limit of CBLR has clearly been violated. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Indair Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs (General) 2016 (5) TMI 775 - DELHI HIGH COURT has held that in the said case time limits are mandatory and not mere directory. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against revocation of Customs Broker license and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
The appellant contended that charges were wrongly confirmed against them as they did not violate the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. They argued that failure to adhere to the time limits prescribed under Regulation 19 of CBLR, 2013 rendered the entire proceeding invalid. The appellant cited various cases to support their argument. They further highlighted that no proper inquiry was conducted, and the process was flawed as no depositions were recorded, and no time sheets were prepared, affecting the appellant's livelihood as Customs Broker.

The learned Assistant Commissioner relied on the impugned order and cited previous tribunal decisions and a Supreme Court judgment. The appellant presented various relevant dates showing the violation of time limits under CBLR, 2013. They argued that the inquiry report was not submitted within the stipulated time frame, similar to cases where proceedings were dropped due to delays in inquiries. The revenue contended that time limits under CBLR were directory and not mandatory, citing tribunal decisions to support their stance.

The issue of whether the time limits in CBLR were mandatory or directory was discussed, referring to a High Court judgment emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits in similar cases. The High Court held that the time limits were mandatory, not merely directory, setting a precedent for similar cases. Based on the violation of time limits prescribed by CBLR, the tribunal found that the impugned order revoking the license could not be sustained. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision was based on the violation of time limits under CBLR, 2013, following the precedent set by the High Court regarding the mandatory nature of such time limits. The appellant's appeal against the revocation of their Customs Broker license and forfeiture of security deposit was allowed, emphasizing the importance of adhering to prescribed time limits in regulatory proceedings.