2016 (9) TMI 1164 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - smuggling of R-22 gas - Regulation 22 of the CBLR, 2003 - time limits prescribed under CBLR of 90 days prescribed for submission of the enquiry report after the issue of show cause notice - contravention of CBLR - Held that - the decision in the case A.M. Ahamed & Co. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Chennai 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT is relied upon where it was held that the observance of time limits should be followed strictly. What constitutes offence report has not been spelt out in the regulation, the same will have to be inferred from the circumstances of the case. From the records it is found that the licensing authority namely the Commissioner of Customs (Import & General) has been apprised of the matter by the DRI on 13.08/2014. This may be practically considered as the offence report. The show cause notice proposing revocation has been issued on 28.10.2014. The inquiry report which is mandated to be completed within ninety days from the date of the show cause notice has been filed only on 11.03.2015, very much beyond the ninety days time limit prescribed for the same. The order of the lower authority issued without adhering to the time schedule liable to be set aside - revocation of license and forfeiture of security not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Time limit observance under CHALR for suspension or revocation of CHA license.
2. Allegation of contravention of CHALR by the appellant.

Issue 1: Time limit observance under CHALR for suspension or revocation of CHA license:
The appeal was filed against an Order in Original revoking the CHA license of the appellant and ordering forfeiture of the security deposit. The case involved smuggling of R-22 gas by M/s. AMP Enterprises, where the appellant, a Customs broker, was implicated. The DRI issued a detention order under cofe-posa, leading to the suspension of the appellant's license. The appellant challenged the order on the grounds of time limit observance and merit. The Commissioner failed to comply with the 90-day time limit for submission of the inquiry report after issuing the show cause notice. The appellant contended that the allegations were denied, while the D.R. acknowledged the non-compliance with the time limit but argued the seriousness of the allegations.

Issue 2: Allegation of contravention of CHALR by the appellant:
Regulation 22 of CHALR empowers the Commissioner to suspend or revoke a license, with specific procedures outlined. The time schedules under CHALR and CBLR during the relevant period were compared, emphasizing the importance of strict time limits. The High Court decisions in A.M. Ahamed & Co. and Saro International Freight Systems stressed the mandatory nature of following prescribed time limits. The Tribunal also cited previous cases where time limits were deemed mandatory. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order for not adhering to the time schedule, following the precedents emphasizing strict observance of time limits under the regulations.

This judgment highlights the critical importance of adhering to prescribed time limits in proceedings involving the suspension or revocation of CHA licenses under CHALR or CBLR. The case underscores the significance of procedural compliance and the consequences of failing to meet the specified timeframes, as established by relevant legal precedents.