2024 (2) TMI 26 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CB license - forfeiture of the security deposit - imposition of penalty under Regulation 18 of CBLR 2018 - time limits prescribed in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2018 have not been followed - HELD THAT - After examining the decisions in Krishna Shipping and Allied Services 2023 (10) TMI 249 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , Tribunal comes to conclusion that time limits prescribes are mandatory. Thus, the time limits prescribed in the CBLR, 2018 have not been followed in this case as an apparent. In these circumstances it cannot be continued as the actions of revenue under CBLR are barred by limitation prescribed by CBLR, 2018. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with time limits prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 2018.
2. Conduct of the enquiry process.
3. Nature of time limits under CBLR, 2018 - whether mandatory or directory.

Summary:

1. Compliance with Time Limits Prescribed Under CBLR, 2018:
The appellant, M/s. Ashapura Shipping Agency, challenged the revocation of their Customs Broker license, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of a penalty u/s Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2018. The appellant argued that the time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2018 were not adhered to by the department. Specifically, Regulation 17(1) mandates the issuance of a show-cause notice within 90 days from the receipt of the office offence report, which was delayed by 14 days. Regulation 17(5) requires the enquiry report to be prepared within 90 days from the date of the show-cause notice, delayed by 66 days. Regulation 17(7) mandates the final order to be passed within 90 days from the date of the enquiry report, delayed by 31 days. The appellant contended that these time limits are mandatory, and failure to adhere to them vitiates the entire proceeding.

2. Conduct of the Enquiry Process:
The appellant also argued that the enquiry process was conducted in a biased and summary manner. They pointed out that no statement of Shri Ashok Bhanushali, the main partner of the appellant firm, was recorded despite multiple summons. The enquiry report did not engage in any examination-in-chief or cross-examination and failed to independently examine any documents. The enquiry officer merely reproduced the provisions of law and concluded the charges against the appellant without examining the facts or law.

3. Nature of Time Limits Under CBLR, 2018 - Mandatory or Directory:
The Tribunal examined whether the time limits prescribed in CBLR, 2018 are mandatory or directory. Referring to various decisions, including the case of Krishna Shipping and Allied Services, the Tribunal concluded that the time limits prescribed are mandatory. The Tribunal noted that failure to adhere to these time limits renders the actions of the revenue under CBLR barred by limitation.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the department failed to follow the mandatory time limits prescribed in CBLR, 2018, as detailed in the table in Para 4.1 of the judgment. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, revoking the suspension of the Customs Broker license and setting aside the impugned order. The appeal was pronounced in open court on 30.01.2024.