2016 (4) TMI 228 - AT - Customs

Validity of order - Non-adherence of time line - Import of Synthetic Diamond Powder - Failure to comply with the obligations under Regulation 13 of CHALR 2004 Regulations 11 and 17 of CBLR, 2013 - Held that - Show cause notice issued much after the time limit prescribed under Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR 2013. Also, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 07/01/2015, Regulation 20 (5) stipulates that the Enquiry Officer shall prepare a report of the enquiry and submit the same within a period of 90 days from the date of issue of show cause notice under sub-Regulation (1). We find enquiry report has been submitted well beyond the period prescribed under the Regulation. Therefore, by considering the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. CC (Imports), Chennai 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s Atharva Global Logistics vs. CC, New Delhi 2016 (2) TMI 10 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and in the case of ZEN Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, New Delhi 2016 (2) TMI 139 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , a time period prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licencing Regulation 2013 are to be adhered to and failure to follow the time limit statutorily prescribed will result in setting aside the order arising out of such proceedings. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to set aside on the ground of non-adherence of time line prescribed under the statutory regulations. - Decided in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation 2004 and Customs Broker Licensing Regulation 2013, non-compliance with obligations under Regulation 13, revocation of license, forfeiture of security deposit, time limit prescribed under Regulation 20 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a Customs Broker whose license was revoked and security deposit forfeited by the Commissioner of Customs due to mis-declaration and violations of licensing regulations. The appellant was accused of mis-declaration in the import of Synthetic Diamond Powder and memory cards. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds of non-compliance with obligations under Regulation 13 and the failure to adhere to the time limit prescribed under Regulation 20 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013.

The appellant's counsel argued that the proceedings were initiated for alleged violations of the Licensing Regulations and contested the order both on merits and procedural grounds. It was contended that the time limit specified under the Regulations was not followed by the Original Authority, rendering the revocation order illegal and without jurisdiction solely on this basis.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the show cause notice was issued after the prescribed time limit, as per Regulation 20(1) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations 2013. The Enquiry Officer's report was also submitted beyond the stipulated 90-day period, violating Regulation 20(5). Citing precedents such as A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. CC (Imports), Chennai and Sanco Trans Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus., the Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limits set by the regulations. Referring to previous decisions, including M/s Atharva Global Logistics vs. CC and M/s ZEN Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC, the Tribunal concluded that failure to comply with the statutory time limits warrants setting aside the order arising from such proceedings.

In light of the non-adherence to the prescribed time limits, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, revoked the revocation of the license, and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant. The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance and adherence to statutory timelines in regulatory proceedings, as established by relevant legal precedents and regulations.