2020 (1) TMI 208 - HC - Customs

Delay in adjudicating the case - breach in time limit as prescribed under Regulation 22 of the Customs House Agent s Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004 - HELD THAT - By exceeding the time limit, the order of the Commissioner did not become invalid or non est. There is no provision in this behalf in the Customs Act, 1962, or in the rules or regulations framed thereunder. To hold that this kind of an effect would follow would be a very adventurous and incorrect interpretation of the intention of the Legislature. If an officer has made an undue delay in the adjudication of the case, the department might take disclipinary action against him. The procedure followed by him might also be attacked before an appellate or revisional forum. Matter remanded to the Tribunal by setting aside its said impugned order by directing it to adjudicate the case by hearing the parties and by a speaking order within three months of communication of this order - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in adjudicating the case beyond the prescribed time limit under CHALR, 2004.
2. Validity of the Commissioner's order due to delay.
3. Interpretation of the Customs Act, 1962, regarding delayed adjudication.
4. Remand of the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication within a specified timeframe.

Analysis:
1. The High Court acknowledged the substantial delay in adjudicating the case beyond the time limit specified in the Customs House Agent's Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004. The Tribunal had set aside the Commissioner of Customs' order due to this delay, highlighting a technical ground for the decision.

2. The Court opined that exceeding the time limit did not automatically render the Commissioner's order invalid or non est. It was emphasized that the Customs Act, 1962, and its related rules and regulations did not provide for such a consequence due to delayed adjudication. The Court cautioned against interpreting legislative intent in an adventurous or incorrect manner, suggesting that disciplinary action or challenge through appellate or revisional forums could address delays.

3. In light of the above considerations, the Court decided to remand the matter back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal was directed to adjudicate the case by hearing all parties involved and issuing a speaking order within three months from the communication of the Court's order. The purpose of this remand was to ensure a fair and timely resolution of the case, avoiding the specific issue of the Commissioner's order being void solely due to the delay.

4. It was explicitly clarified by the Court that all aspects of the case were open for consideration before the Tribunal, except for the specific contention that the Commissioner's order was void or non est in law due to being passed beyond the time limit. Consequently, the appeal related to the matter was disposed of in accordance with the Court's directions, emphasizing the need for a fresh adjudication within the stipulated timeframe.