2016 (10) TMI 445 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - readymade garments - DEPB benefits - violation of the provisions of Regulation 18 (a), (d) (o) and Regulation 19 (8) of Custom House Agent Licencing Regulation (CHALR), 2004 - time limit prescribed for following the procedures - Held that - the time limits prescribed under the Regulations are to be followed mandatorily in exercising the powers. The decision in the case of Atharva Global Logistics vs. CC, New Delhi 2016 (2) TMI 10 - CESTAT NEW DELHI apply. In view of the legal position of mandatory nature of the time limits prescribed under the Regulation, the proceedings have not been held within the frame of time limit (total 270 days) as prescribed under Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004 - CHA licence restored - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Customs House Agent license based on violation of regulations - Compliance with time limits under CHALR, 2004.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by a licensed Customs House Agent against the revocation of their license by the Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi. The revocation was based on the agent's involvement in filing shipping bills for export of sub-standard quality garments at inflated values to claim inadmissible benefits. The Original Authority found violations of Regulation 18(a), (d), (o), and Regulation 19(8) of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulation (CHALR), 2004.

The appellant contended that the revocation lacked legal authority and raised a preliminary objection regarding the adherence to mandatory time limits under CHALR, 2004. The appellant argued that the proceedings, initiated in 2011, were concluded in 2016, exceeding the prescribed time limits. The appellant cited legal precedents emphasizing strict adherence to time limits under CHALR 2004 to maintain jurisdiction, highlighting delays in the inquiry process.

The Authorized Representative argued that the appellant had indeed violated CHALR 2004 and were penalized correctly. While acknowledging a delay in the inquiry report submission, the AR contended that this delay should not benefit the appellant due to a change in the Inquiry Officer.

The Tribunal examined the legal sanctity of time limits under CHALR 2004, citing precedents from the Hon'ble Madras High Court and various Tribunal decisions. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal held that the time limits prescribed under the Regulation are mandatory. Noting the failure to adhere to the time limits in the present case, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal based on the non-compliance with the prescribed time limits, as per Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the significance of strict adherence to time limits under CHALR 2004 in proceedings involving the revocation of licenses for Customs House Agents. The decision underscores that failure to comply with these time limits can render actions by authorities without jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of orders based on such non-compliance.