2022 (5) TMI 30 - HC - Customs

Condonation of delay - considerable unexplained delay in conducting the enquiry proceedings or not - Whether the findings of the CESTAT that the Respondents were conducting their business through their employee is based on no evidence or partly relevant or partly irrelevant evidence and is otherwise perverse and arbitrarily? - revocation of the CB Licence - forfeiture of the entire amount of Security Deposit - HELD THAT - This court observed that there cannot be any absolute principle which can be laid down to determine as what would be reasonable period but it would be dependent on the facts and circumstances of the each case - The Tribunal has listed a chronology of dates and events before the inquiry officer. The Tribunal has made factual observations that from the date sheet, as submitted, there appears to be considerable unexplained delay in various steps of proceedings. Mr. Deshmukh submitted that in the findings of the inquiry officer he has explained the delay. In our view also the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, particularly upto 14th August 2014. The Tribunal has not committed any perversity or applied incorrect principles to the given facts and when the facts and circumstances are properly analysed and correct test is applied to decide the issue at hand, then, we do not think that question as pressed raises any substantial question of law. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugning an order by Customs Excise and Services Tax Tribunal (CESTAT) based on delay in inquiry proceedings.
2. Challenge regarding findings of conducting business through an employee.
3. Setting aside revocation of Custom Broker (CB) Licence and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
1. The Appellant contested an order by CESTAT, questioning the delay in inquiry proceedings and proposing specific legal questions. The Appellant argued that CESTAT did not adhere strictly to the views of the court in a prior case. The Respondents, custom brokers with a CB Licence, were found to have misdeclared goods, leading to the revocation of their licence and forfeiture of the security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs. CESTAT initially set aside this order due to delays in inquiry proceedings, which was challenged in court. The court remanded the matter, emphasizing the importance of justifying delays beyond prescribed timelines and holding officers accountable for adherence to time limits.

2. The Tribunal highlighted significant delays in various stages of the inquiry proceedings, lacking satisfactory explanations. The Appellant argued that the delay was adequately explained by the inquiry officer, but the court found the explanations unsatisfactory, particularly up to a specific date. The court concluded that the Tribunal did not act perversely or apply incorrect principles, dismissing the appeal for lacking merit and without costs.

3. The judgment underscored the need to balance timely proceedings with fairness to both parties, emphasizing the accountability of revenue authorities for delays. It stressed the importance of justifying any deviations from prescribed timelines and ensuring expeditious completion of inquiries. The court's analysis focused on the specifics of the delays in the inquiry proceedings, ultimately upholding the Tribunal's decision and dismissing the appeal.