2024 (12) TMI 477 - AT - Customs

Continuation of suspension of license issued under Regulation 16 (2) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 - HELD THAT - The dates of Bills of Entry / import is not coming out from the documents placed on record. However, para--3 of the SCN dt. 05.10.2023 indicates that during the course of investigation, statement of Ms. Starlina was recorded on 11.01.2023. The first show cause notice, as indicated above is issued on 05.10.2023 and from the said SCN, there are no mention of any investigation or offence report. In the said SCN, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Chennai III) is shown to have been appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The CBLR prescribes a time-frame within which, prescribed authority should take action for any alleged violation/s of any of the Regulation/s under the same. It is the case of the Appellant that for an alleged violation of the import made in October/November 2022, the authorities should have completed the proceedings within the permissible 90 90 90 days, however, it has been more than nearly 2 years and the only action taken by the authority is the suspension of license which has seriously affected the livelihood of not only the appellant, but also the employees working under the appellants and that the continuation thereof of the suspension of licenses has only aggravated their misery. It is not the intention of the legislature to jeopardize the business and his livelihood of CHA on account of any inaction or delay thereof on the part of the Revenue authority and thereby result in the deprivation of his livelihood. He may have employed few personnel who are also dependent on the appellants for their livelihood. Hence, the appellants before cannot be left remedy-less because of the reason of inaction, for various reasons, known only to the Revenue. It may be that the CHA before us has a case since the time-frame has not been adhered to by the authorities, but in any case, that is not the issue in this Appeal. The inaction on the part of the Revenue has caused sufficient miscarriage of justice insofar as the appellants in the present case are concerned. Moreover, as pointed out by the ld. Advocate, the show-case notice issued in June 2024 may be a device to extend the time-frame prescribed under the CBLR, but in any case, even that cannot come in the way of the appellants continuing with their business, with their license intact, until the proposed proceedings initiated is taken to its logical end. Therefore, the balance of inconvenience is clearly with the appellants and hence, the Revenue would not in any way be affected if the order of suspension of their license set aside, thereby permitting them to continue with their business. Accordingly, the order suspending the license of the appellants is set aside. The authority below can always go ahead since there has been an initiation of a proceedings, and conclude the same in accordance with law thereafter. The impugned order set aside - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the continuation of suspension of license under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018.

Analysis:
The appellants challenged the order of suspension of license issued by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, arguing that the suspension was beyond the time frame provided under Regulation 17 of CBLR. The first show cause notice did not mention any offense report, and the Commissioner concluded violations without conducting a proper inquiry. The second appellant did not file a Bill of Entry, questioning the basis of the suspension order. The appellants claimed that the suspension affected their livelihood and requested setting aside the order until the completion of proceedings. The Revenue failed to provide an inquiry report, further challenging the validity of the suspension order.

The Tribunal refrained from delving into the merits of the case as the proceedings were at a preliminary stage. The key issue was whether the order for the continuation of suspension was sustainable. The Tribunal noted relevant dates from the documents, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the prescribed time frame under CBLR. The delay in completing proceedings had severe consequences for the appellants and their employees, impacting their livelihoods. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of punishment for previous violations and emphasized that the alleged background of the appellants was not proven, thus not relevant to the present violations.

The Tribunal expressed concern over jeopardizing the business and livelihood of the Customs House Agent (CHA) due to inaction by the Revenue authority. It noted that the appellants should not be left without a remedy due to delays or inaction by the authorities. Despite acknowledging the Revenue's inactivity in adhering to the CBLR's limitations, the Tribunal set aside the suspension order, allowing the appellants to continue their business. The balance of inconvenience favored the appellants, and the Revenue would not be significantly affected by lifting the suspension. The Tribunal directed the lower authority to proceed with the pending proceedings in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order for the continuation of suspension, disposing of the appeals in favor of the appellants.