2016 (8) TMI 528 - AT - Customs

Restoration of licence search - contravention of Regulation 11(j) and 11(m) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 Held that - It is not the case where the Appellant refused to access, or concealed, or removed or destroyed any document. It is clear that a search has been conducted and documents have been received from the Appellant. The representative of the Appellant also appeared before the investigating Officers and deposed statement under Section 108. The strong allegation of refusal, removal or destruction of documents should not be levelled against the Appellant. Regulation 20 - the suspension order to be followed by action under Regulation 20 within a period of 90 days of receipt of offence report Held that - till date no follow up by way of show cause notice under Regulation 20 has been issued for revocation of Appellant s licence. The offence report has been recorded in the impugned order which resulted in the suspension. As such, the time limit of 90 days prescribed has already lapsed. It is held in catena of decision by High Courts and Tribunal that the time limit prescribed in CBLR, 2013 is mandatory and failure to adhere the same will make the action without jurisdiction impugned order not justified decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against suspension of Customs Broker Licence based on alleged contravention of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013.

Analysis:
The appeal challenged the suspension of the Customs Broker Licence by the Commissioner of Customs, Airport, New Delhi. The suspension was confirmed based on the alleged contravention of Regulation 11(j) and 11(m) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. The lower authority held that the Appellant failed to submit documents requested by the investigating officer, leading to the suspension of the licence. The Appellant's representatives appeared before the investigating officers and provided statements voluntarily. The Appellant contended that all relevant documents were handed over to the officers during a search conducted at their premises. Notably, no show cause notice was issued against the Appellant despite the completion of investigations against one of the importers involved. The Appellant raised two main grounds in challenging the suspension order: alleged violations of Regulations 11(j) and 11(m) and the absence of any action under Regulation 20 within the prescribed time limit of 90 days.

The Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's arguments. Regulation 11(j) prohibits Customs Brokers from refusing access to, concealing, removing, or destroying any records sought by the Commissioner of Customs. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had cooperated with the investigation and provided the necessary documents. Moreover, the Tribunal emphasized that no show cause notice under Regulation 20 was issued within the stipulated 90-day period following the offence report, rendering the suspension without proper legal basis. Citing precedents and decisions by High Courts and Tribunals, the Tribunal underscored the mandatory nature of the time limits prescribed in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. Failure to adhere to these time limits was deemed to render any subsequent actions void. The Tribunal referenced a specific Final Order and decisions by the Madras High Court to support its stance on the importance of adhering to the prescribed time limits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no justification for the suspension order based on the analysis and discussions presented. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Appellant. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 22.07.2016.