9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (5) TMI 81 - AT - CustomsPeriod of limitation - Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation 2013 - Revokation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security - Illicit import of cigarette - Held that - the offence report was dated 08.10.2012. The show cause notice was issued on 07.01.2014 and the enquiry report was dated 10.11.2014. The Regulation 20 stipulates that show cause notice has to be issued within 90 days of offence report. Even it is to be considered that the new Regulations came into effect only from 21.06.2013. The enquiry report also has been filed more than 10 months after the show cause notice, therefore, it is found that the statutory time limit prescribed by the relevant regulations have not been followed. By considering the decision of Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of A.M. Ahamad & Co. Vs. CC (Imports) Chennai 2014 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and in the case of Sanco Trans Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai 2015 (7) TMI 455 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the time limit prescribed under Regulations are to be strictly adhered to. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues:
Revocation of CHA license and forfeiture of security deposit. Analysis: The appellant, holding a CHA license, appealed against the revocation of their license and forfeiture of security deposit by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The case originated from an investigation into illicit import of cigarettes by M&P Wing of Mumbai customs in December 2011. Proceedings were initiated against the appellant under CHA License Regulation 2004. The Commissioner, Customs, New Delhi suspended the CHA License of the appellant on 29.11.2012, which was later revoked on 07.01.2014. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued proposing revocation of the license and forfeiture of the security deposit. The appellant contested the order on both merits and the question of time bar under Regulation 20 of CB Licensing Regulations, 2013. On the merits, the appellant argued that they were not involved in any contravention of Customs Act provisions. The allegations against them were based on the actions of an employee in Mumbai, and there was no direct link between the appellant and the attempted smuggling of cigarettes by another entity. The appellant's responsibility for verifying importers' backgrounds was also questioned, as it was unclear which consignments violated customs provisions and lacked proper KYC norms. The appellant's employee, a customs G card holder, was authorized to transact with customs on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal found no justification for the license revocation based on the facts presented in the impugned order. Moreover, the Tribunal noted that the time limits prescribed under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation 2013 were not adhered to in this case. The show cause notice was issued more than 90 days after the offence report, and the enquiry report was filed over 10 months after the notice, contravening the statutory time limit. Citing previous judgments, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the prescribed time limits. Based on this analysis, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order on both merit and procedural grounds, ultimately allowing the appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the revocation of the CHA license and forfeiture of the security deposit were not justified on both substantive and procedural grounds. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
|
