2016 (6) TMI 754 - AT - Customs

Suspension of the CHA licence - Period of limitation - Held that - Suspension of CHA licence was made in the present case on 31.03.2010. There was a post decisional hearing granted on 4.5.2010. The outcome of such hearing followed by suspension on 7.9.2010 was before Tribunal as aforesaid. Thereafter the matter travelled for proposition to revocation of licence. The show cause notice dated 5.7.2011 was its outcome. That notice required inquiry to be conducted by subordinate officer and reported to the Commissioner within time limit. But unfortunately the proceedings was so delayed and revocation of licence was made by the impugned order dated 14.6.2015. Such inordinate delay is good ground to set aside the order of the revocation. - Decided in favor of CHA.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of CHA license and violation of natural justice.
2. Delay in revocation proceedings under Regulation 21.
3. Ignoring legal infirmities in the notice and defense pleas.
4. Compliance with time limits under CHALR regulations.
5. Justifiability of revocation order and revenue loss.
6. Inordinate delay in revocation proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the suspension of their CHA license citing a lack of natural justice and ignorance of suspension grounds. The Tribunal previously set aside the suspension due to these reasons. The appellant argued that the show cause notice for revocation under Regulation 21 was issued with total disregard for the prescribed time schedule, leading to a delay of over 4 years in the proceedings, violating Regulation 22(5) of CHALR, 2014. The appellant's defense pleas were allegedly ignored in the inquiry report, which exceeded the scope of the show cause notice.

2. The appellant sought to set aside the impugned order based on legal precedents emphasizing the importance of timely proceedings for citizens' professional rights. The respondent contended that the revocation was justified due to the appellant's involvement in revenue loss through connivance with importers. The revenue argued that administrative reasons caused the delay in proceedings following the Tribunal's suspension order.

3. The High Court of Madras highlighted the binding nature of time limits under CHALR regulations to prevent endless punitive proceedings and protect the rights of license holders. The Tribunal found that the delay in revocation proceedings, initiated after the suspension in 2010, was unjustifiable and set aside the revocation order based on the Madras High Court's rulings.

4. The Tribunal noted the necessity of strict adherence to time limits under CHALR regulations to prevent arbitrary actions against license holders. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal emphasized that time limits must be mandatorily followed, as demonstrated in various decisions, including those involving other customs cases in New Delhi.

5. Ultimately, guided by the principles established in previous decisions emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits under CHALR regulations, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, highlighting the importance of timely and fair proceedings in matters concerning CHA licenses.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, arguments presented, legal precedents cited, and the final decision reached by the Tribunal.