2024 (3) TMI 1299 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - Customs Broker resorted to unprofessional methods while clearing the goods imported vide Bill of Entry - Fabrication of redemption fine and penalty in the order in original - time limit stipulated in Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 - whether the Order directing for continuation of suspension issued by the Department dated 20.12.2013 is legal and proper - HELD THAT - The prohibitary order was issued on 05.06.2013. If such date is considered as the date on which the Department had come to know of the incident the Show Cause Notice ought to have been issued on or before 05.12.2013. In the present case the Show Cause Notice is issued only on 20.12.2013 which is beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013. Further it has to be noted that though an inquiry officer was appointed by the Department no inquiry report (offence report) was submitted by the Department. The Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sabin Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 2019 (4) TMI 1713 - MADRAS HIGH COURT had held that the compliance of the time limit as prescribed in the Regulation is mandatory. This Tribunal in the case of M/s. Trade Wings Logistics India Pvt. Ltd. 2023 (7) TMI 892 - CESTAT CHENNAI had occasion to consider a similar issue and held that when the Department has not complied with the time limit the order issued for revocation of licence or the order issued for continuation of the suspension licence cannot sustain. Thus we are of considered opinion that the Order issued by the Department directing for continuation of suspension of the licence cannot sustain and requires to be set aside. In the result the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief if any as per law.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Alleged unprofessional conduct by Customs Broker during clearance of imported goods.
2. Violation of time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice u/s Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013.

Issue 1: Alleged unprofessional conduct by Customs Broker
The appellant, a Customs Broker, was involved in manipulating an Order-in-Original related to the clearance of goods imported via a Bill of Entry. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs imposed a redemption fine and penalty, but an employee of the appellant's office altered the amounts on the order, leading to the importer paying more than required. Subsequently, the appellant faced suspension and a Show Cause Notice for revocation of license. The appellant argued that the employee responsible for the alterations had been dismissed and that they were not involved in the manipulation. The Tribunal considered the facts and held that the Order directing for continuation of suspension was not legal and proper.

Issue 2: Violation of time limit for issuing Show Cause Notice
The appellant contended that the Show Cause Notice issued beyond the 90-day limit prescribed by Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 was invalid. The Department failed to submit an offence report within the stipulated time frame, and the Show Cause Notice was issued after the deadline. Citing precedents and legal provisions, the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limit and ruled that the failure to comply with Regulation 20 rendered the Order for continuation of suspension unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the Order directing for continuation of suspension and the Show Cause Notice were invalid due to non-compliance with the prescribed time limit under Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.