2018 (6) TMI 1024 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - the suspension in the impugned order is challenged on the ground that the action was not in conformity with timelines prescribed by Central Board of Excise & Customs in circular no. 9/2010- Cus dated 8th April 2010 - Held that - The licensing authority is vested with the discretion to suspend if warranted. A justifiable challenge to suspension can arise if the time-lines for post-decisional hearing or for order of continuation is not complied with or is not followed by enquiry within the period stipulated in regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations or if the circumstances are such that urgency of action is not tenable. The appellant has not been able to bring forth a challenge on any of these issues. The alleged role of the broker in the alleged smuggling is the crux of the proceedings against the appellant. The role disclaimed by the appellant for questioning the suspension, if ruled upon at this stage, would render redundant the process under regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Issues:
1. Challenge to the confirmation of license suspension under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.
2. Compliance with timelines prescribed by Central Board of Excise & Customs.
3. Justifiability of suspension under regulation 19.
4. Role and discretion of licensing authority in suspension.
5. Lack of evidence and challenge to suspension.
6. Alleged involvement of broker in smuggling and adherence to norms.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the confirmation of license suspension, citing non-conformity with timelines prescribed by Circular no. 9/2010-Cus. The appellant argued that the licensing authority failed to provide relied upon documents for the post-decisional hearing, thus vitiating the proceedings. Additionally, the appellant contended that the suspension lacked evidence and disregarded the limited role of a broker, referencing a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

2. The Tribunal noted that suspension under regulation 19 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 is for immediate action and precedes the formal revocation procedure. While the post-decisional hearing exceeded the circular's timelines, the Tribunal held that the overall confirmation timeline was within the stipulated period. The mandatory timelines are those in regulations 19 and 20, and deviations may occur due to factual peculiarities.

3. The appellant's delayed response to the hearing offer based on lack of relied upon documents was deemed insufficient to challenge the suspension. The Tribunal emphasized that suspension is distinct from revocation and can proceed without all documents. The licensing authority has discretion to suspend when necessary, and a challenge can arise if prescribed timelines are not followed.

4. It was highlighted that an appeal against administrative decisions is warranted only in cases of statutory violations or unreasonable exercise of authority. The Tribunal found no evidence of such disregard in the present matter, affirming the licensing authority's role in administering the customs formation.

5. The crux of the proceedings revolved around the alleged role of the broker in smuggling activities. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate the extent of involvement, stating that challenging the suspension without addressing the involvement issue would contradict regulatory requirements under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

6. Ultimately, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the impugned order, dismissing the appeal based on the arguments presented during the proceedings. The decision was pronounced on 05.06.2018, upholding the confirmation of license suspension under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.

← Previous Next →