Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2023 (6) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (6) TMI 1096 - HC - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Whether the prescribed time limit for taking steps in each stage under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2002 is mandatory.
2. The effect of exceeding these time limits.

Summary:

Issue 1: Whether the prescribed time limit for taking steps in each stage under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2002 is mandatory.

The tribunal had set aside the order of the Commissioner of Customs due to the enquiry report being submitted beyond the 90-day limit stipulated in Regulation 20(5) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013. The High Court noted that there is no consequence prescribed for the breach of this time limit, indicating that the time period is directory, not mandatory. The intention behind the regulation is to serve as an administrative instruction to complete the enquiry within a stipulated time, and delays would not affect the proceedings but might lead to administrative action against the officer.

Issue 2: The effect of exceeding these time limits.

The High Court observed that the tribunal exercised its discretion in not accepting the enquiry report filed beyond the 90-day period. This discretion was not seen as grossly erroneous or unreasonable, thus no substantial question of law arose from the tribunal's decision. The tribunal also considered the prolonged suspension of the respondent's license (eight years) as a proportionate punishment.

Separate Judgment by Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury:

Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury agreed with the findings of his learned brother except on the point of upholding the tribunal's decision regarding the non-acceptance of the 'Enquiry Report'. He opined that Regulation 20(5) is directory and the tribunal should have considered the enquiry report despite the delay. The enquiry report should not be discarded solely based on the delay unless the period is mandatory. He emphasized that the enquiry should be conducted with caution, especially in the absence of the respondent, and that the findings of the enquiry officer were not thoroughly scrutinized.

Justice Chowdhury found the enquiry proceedings and the decision of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Admin) to be perverse due to the lack of proper consideration of the respondent's submissions and the reliance on unchallenged statements. He set aside the findings related to Article of Charge-I and Article of Charge-II but acknowledged some negligence on the part of the respondent's director regarding Charge-III. Given the confiscation of the security deposit and the eight-year suspension, no further penalty was deemed necessary.

The appeal was thus disposed of, and the order of the Appellate Authority was to be implemented.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates