2023 (7) TMI 966 - AT - Customs

Revocation of the appellant's CHA Licence - forfeiture of Bank Guarantee - failure to fulfil the obligations cast upon them under Regulation 13 of the CHALR, while importing goods duty-free under Advance Authorization Scheme - HELD THAT - From the documents placed on record, it appears that the personal hearing was provided on 31.08.2012, which means that as on the date of hearing, no order was made by the Commissioner. Even if the period of ninety days is to be calculated from 26.04.2012, then the Commissioner should have passed the order revoking the licence at least before the end of August 2012. But however, the impugned order is dated 11.06.2013, which is clearly very much beyond the prescribed period of 90 days. Reliance placed on the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/S. SABIN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., MR. S. LOGANATHAN VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, SHRI FELIX RAJ 2019 (4) TMI 1713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT wherein it has been clearly held that where a provision / regulation spells out a specific period of limitation, such period is mandatory and any exclusion therefrom should also be provided specifically and thus, the Hon ble Court set aside the impugned order therein where the Customs Broker Licence was revoked by the Commissioner. The impugned order of revocation as well forfeiture of security deposit is clearly unsustainable in the eye of law and hence, the same is set aside - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
The appeal challenges the revocation of the appellant's CHA Licence and forfeiture of Bank Guarantee by the Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Coimbatore.

Issue 1: Alleged contravention of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulations (CHALR), 2004
- A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant, a Custom House Agent, for failing to fulfill obligations under Regulation 13 of the CHALR.
- Investigation into diversion of duty-free Mulberry Raw Silk Yarn revealed the appellant's involvement in clearing goods without fulfilling obligations.
- Investigation showed misuse of Advance Authorization Scheme by another firm, leading to suspicion of fraud and contravention of Customs Act and Foreign Trade Policy.

Issue 2: Compliance with time-limit for passing orders
- The appellant contended that the order was passed beyond the stipulated time-limit of ninety days under Regulation 22(7) of the CHALR.
- The Inquiry Report was submitted on 17.04.2012, but the order was passed on 11.06.2013, exceeding the prescribed period.
- Citing a High Court decision, the appellant argued that specific time limits in regulations are mandatory, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order in similar cases.

Judgement:
- The Tribunal found the revocation order and forfeiture of security deposit unsustainable due to the delay in passing the order beyond the prescribed time-limit.
- Rulings from the High Court and lack of contrary decisions supported the view that specific time limits in regulations are mandatory.
- Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.