2019 (6) TMI 26 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - breach of the time limits which have been mandated in Regulation 22 of the CBLR 2013 - HELD THAT - As the time limits laid down in Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 have been followed in the breach, the impugned order of revocation and forfeiture of security deposit cannot be sustained and will require to be set aside on this ground alone - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Legality of revocation of Customs Broker's Licence due to breach of time limits mandated in Regulation 22 of the CBLR 2013.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Compliance with Time Limits
The appellant argued that the revocation of the license cannot be sustained as the time limits specified in Regulation 22 of the CBLR 2013 were not followed. The show cause notice (SCN) was issued on 06.06.2017, the inquiry officer report was submitted on 29.11.2017, and the revocation of the license was on 09.05.2018, all exceeding the 90-day limit. The appellant relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to time limits in regulatory proceedings.

Issue 2: Legal Implications
The respondent argued that the appellant was fully implicated in the offense committed by the importer, justifying the revocation. However, the Tribunal found that the matter was settled law and not a new issue. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s.A.M.Ahamed & Co., which highlighted the mandatory nature of time limits in regulatory procedures, rejecting arguments that such limits could be considered directory.

Issue 3: Judicial Precedents
Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Carewell Shipping Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal reiterated the mandatory nature of time limits under the Regulations. The Court emphasized that any delay in filing reports beyond the prescribed period renders subsequent proceedings invalid. The Court held that failure to adhere to statutory time limits is a ground for setting aside actions taken beyond the specified time frame.

Conclusion:
Based on the discussions and legal precedents cited, the Tribunal concluded that the revocation and forfeiture of the security deposit could not be sustained due to the breach of time limits as mandated in Regulation 20 of the CBLR 2013. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The decision was made in line with the established legal principles regarding the mandatory nature of time limits in regulatory proceedings.