9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 396 - AT - CustomsPeriod of limitation - Invokation of Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004 - Revokation of CHA licence - Tribunal s order not being followed - Held that - considering the law laid down as well as facts and circumstances and suffering of the CHA for the last 3 years and the fact that the Authority has immediately revoked the licence of the appellant without implementing the order of the Tribunal, the order of revocation is set aside being barred by limitation. It is made clear that when order of suspension failed to stand, the order of revocation also lost its existence. The Authority is directed to consider renewal of the CHA licence expeditiously without delay since from the date of suspension i.e. 30.01.2013 the CHA has already undergone suffering for more than three years. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues involved:
1. Commencement of limitation under law for suspension or revocation of licence of a Customs House Agent (CHA). 2. Adherence to time frame prescribed by law for suspension and revocation of licence. 3. Implementation of Tribunal's order by the Authorities. 4. Time limits prescribed for punitive actions under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004. 5. Importance of timely actions by the authority in disciplinary proceedings. 6. Observance of time limits strictly under CHALR 2004/CBLR 2013. 7. Subordinate authority's duty to implement higher court orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. The judgment revolves around the crucial issue of the commencement of limitation under law for suspension or revocation of a CHA's licence. The petitioner argued that the date of knowledge of the offence committed by the CHA, i.e., 1.4.2013, was pivotal for initiating proceedings under Regulation 20(2) of the CHALR, 2004. The Tribunal had previously set aside the order of suspension of the appellant's licence due to the authority's failure to adhere to the prescribed time frame. The factual position remained undisturbed as no cogent evidence was presented by the Revenue to justify the delay. 2. Another significant issue addressed in the judgment is the adherence to the time frame prescribed by law for suspension and revocation of a CHA's licence. The Authorities flouted the Tribunal's order and revoked the licence without implementing the earlier decision. The lack of judicial discipline in disregarding the Tribunal's order rendered the impugned order without a foundation. The petitioner argued that proceedings suffering from a limitation bar fail to sustain further actions. 3. The judgment also highlights the Authorities' failure to implement the Tribunal's order, leading to the revocation of the licence. The Revenue supported the impugned order but failed to demonstrate the implementation of the Tribunal's previous decision, showcasing a lack of procedural compliance. 4. The importance of time limits prescribed for punitive actions under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004 is emphasized in the judgment. Timely actions are crucial in disciplinary proceedings, as suspension and revocation of a licence significantly impact a CHA's livelihood. The regulations consciously prescribe time limits to ensure timely completion of proceedings without undue delays. 5. The judgment underscores the significance of timely actions by the authority in disciplinary proceedings. Belated proceedings are deemed time-barred and do not receive legal sanction, as established in previous cases cited in the judgment. The Tribunal's decision in similar cases emphasizes the mandatory nature of following prescribed time limits. 6. The judgment references the observance of time limits strictly under CHALR 2004/CBLR 2013, citing decisions by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Apex Court. The strict adherence to time limits prescribed in regulations is deemed mandatory, and failure to comply may render actions void. 7. Lastly, the judgment highlights the duty of subordinate authorities to implement higher court orders. The failure to adhere to the Tribunal's order led to the revocation of the licence being set aside due to being barred by limitation. The Authority is directed to consider the renewal of the CHA licence promptly, considering the suffering endured by the appellant during the proceedings.
|
