2023 (5) TMI 725 - AT - Customs

Revocation of Customs Broker License - Time Limitation - case of appellant are that neither is the corrigendum/addendum dated 05.11.2018 that was issued to the show cause notice dated 24.09.2018 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, ICD-PPG, New Delhi an office report under regulation 17 of the 2018 Regulations, nor has the Principal Commissioner of Customs issued the notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of offence report - HELD THAT - A perusal of the show cause notice dated 11.02.2019, which ultimately resulted in the passing of the impugned order dated 12.07.2019, shows that the offence report has been treated to be the corrigendum/addendum dated 05.11.2018 that was issued to the show cause notice dated 24.09.2018 issued by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, ICD-PPG and other ICDs, New Delhi. The show cause notice dated 11.02.2019 further mentions that the office had investigated that a number of exporters were engaged in filing shipping bills with a view to fraudulently claim inadmissible export benefits in respect of various consignments - It is clear from the show cause notice dated 11.02.2019 that the Department treated this corrigendum /addendum dated 5.11.2018, which was received on 14.11.2018, as the offence report. The corrigendum / addendum does not refer to any allegation against the appellant. In fact, a perusal of the said corrigendum / addendum to the show cause notice shows that it merely corrects the numbers of the relied upon documents mentioned in paragraph 9 (a), paragraph 34 and 36.1 of the show cause notice dated 24.09.2018. It cannot, therefore, be treated as an offence report. In this view of the matter, the show cause notice dated 11.02.2019, which has resulted in passing of the impugned order dated 11.07.2019, has to be set aside. It is true that the office notes do mention that corrigendum / addendum dated 05.11.2018 to the show cause notice dated 24.09.2018 was not received, but what also transpires from the office notes is that even in the absence of the show cause notice dated 24.09.2018, a draft of the proposed show cause notice dated 11.02.2019 was put up for approval and after approval, a fair copy of the show cause notice was put up for signatures of the officer on 08.02.2019 and it was signed by the Commissioner on 08.02.2019 - It cannot, therefore, be believed that prior to the issuance of the show cause notice dated 11.02.2019, the Commissioner (Airport General) was not possessed of the show cause notice dated 24.09.2018 and it can fairly be concluded that it is only to get out of the limitation provided under regulation 17(1) of the 2018 Regulations, that an attempt was made to treat the corrigendum / addendum dated 05.11.2019, which was received on 14.11.2019, as the offence report, even though, as stated above, it cannot under any circumstances be treated as an offence report. It is not possible to sustain the order dated 12.7.2019 passed by the Commissioner (Airport and General) revoking the Customs Broker License of the appellant - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Revocation of Customs Broker License under regulations 14 and 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018.

Summary:
The appeal challenges the order revoking the Customs Broker License based on the Commissioner of Customs' powers under regulations 14 and 17(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations 2018. The appellant argues that the corrigendum/addendum issued to the show cause notice was not an office report under regulation 17 and that the notice was not issued within the stipulated timeframe. The key contention revolves around the procedural compliance as per regulation 17(1) of the 2018 Regulations.

The show cause notice dated 11.02.2019, leading to the impugned order, treated the corrigendum/addendum as the offence report, alleging exporters' fraudulent activities. However, the corrigendum/addendum only corrected document numbers and did not contain any allegations against the appellant. The lack of specific allegations against the appellant raises doubts on the validity of treating the corrigendum/addendum as an offence report, as required under the regulations.

The Department's argument that the show cause notice dated 24.09.2018 was not received by the Commissioner of Customs is contradicted by the fact that the subsequent notice dated 11.02.2019 referenced facts from the earlier notice. The attempt to use the corrigendum/addendum as an offence report to circumvent the limitation under regulation 17(1) appears questionable. Additionally, the charges in the initial notice were dropped by the Additional Commissioner of Customs in a later order, further undermining the basis for revocation.

The Tribunal, considering the procedural irregularities and lack of specific allegations against the appellant, sets aside the order revoking the Customs Broker License. The appeal is allowed, emphasizing the importance of adherence to procedural requirements and ensuring fair treatment in such regulatory matters.