2021 (8) TMI 303 - AT - Customs

Levy of penalty on Customs Broker under Regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 2018 - violation of Regulation 10 (d) (e) and (n) of CBLR, 2018 - time limitation for issuance of notices - HELD THAT - The findings arrived at by the Commissioner-Adjudicating authority interalia reveal that offence report dated 28.05.2019 was sent by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs House, Cochin vide letter F. No. S9/13/2008-I B-Cus dated 07.06.2019, which was received on 12.06.2019. This would mean that the time limit provided under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 would start ticking from 12.06.2019 and the Revenue has an upper limit of 90 days from the date of receipt to issue a notice in writing. There is no dispute here that the SCN was issued on 15.10.2019, which is clearly beyond the prescribed 90 days statutory period. The excuse pretended by the adjudicating authority that some of the documents required translation, is no ground to endorse inaction in the non-issuance of SCN within 90 days. The authorities are expected to adhere to the time limit and the Regulation in question does not carve out any exceptions and hence, the reasons given by the Commissioner cannot be accepted - the notice having been issued beyond the prescribed period which is itself irregular and therefore, penalty imposed on the appellant cannot be sustained. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 on the appellant for violation of Regulation 10 (d), (e), and (n) of CBLR, 2018.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal challenges the penalty imposed on the appellant by the Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. The main issue is whether the Revenue was justified in imposing the penalty based on the alleged violations of Regulation 10 (d), (e), and (n) of CBLR, 2018.

2. The appellant argued that the proceedings were void ab-initio as the Show Cause Notice was issued more than 30 days after the prescribed 90 days period, contrary to Regulation 17 of CBLR. Citing case-law precedents, the appellant contended that the delay in issuing the notice rendered the proceedings irregular and the penalty invalid.

3. The Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner's findings, leading to a detailed examination of the timeline of events. The offence report was received on 12.06.2019, triggering the 90-day period for issuing a notice. However, the Show Cause Notice was issued on 15.10.2019, beyond the statutory limit. Reference was made to case-law emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits in such regulations.

4. The Tribunal noted that the delay in issuing the notice was in clear violation of the prescribed 90-day period under Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018. Citing legal principles, the Tribunal highlighted that specific time limits in regulations are mandatory, with no room for exceptions. The Tribunal rejected the excuse of document translation causing delays and emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the notice issued beyond the prescribed period was irregular, rendering the penalty imposed on the appellant unsustainable. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the procedural irregularity in issuing the notice beyond the statutory time limit, leading to the invalidation of the penalty imposed on the appellant under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018.