9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 468 - AT - CustomsSuspension of CHA licence - Regulation 19(1) of CBLR 2013 - contravention of the provisions of CBLR 2013 - time bar - Held that - It is seen from the records that Commissioner of Customs Delhi received the prohibition order issued by Commissioner of Customs Mumbai on 26.04.2016. This may be considered as the date of receipt of Offence Report. Regulation 20(1) contemplates issue of Show Cause Notice to the customs broker by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of Offence Report. The issue of Show Cause Notice is to be followed within a period of 90 days by submission of Inquiry Report by Asst. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner and ultimate passing of the order by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of Inquiry report - A perusal of the records of the present case reveals that the initial Show Cause Notice under Regulation 20 has not been issued till date even though the offence Report was received by the Commissioner of Customs Delhi on 26.04.2016. Ninety days period has already expired on 25.07.2016. Hon ble Madras High Court has emphasised the observance of time limits strictly under the CHALR 2004/CBLR 2013 in the case of Saro International Freight System Vs. CC Chennai 2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT - As such the order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule is liable to be set aside on these grounds. Accordingly we set aside the impugned order of the original authority and allow the appeal. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
Issues:
1. Challenge against the order of suspension of license by Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. 2. Time limit observance under CBLR, 2013. 3. Merit-based challenge denying contravention of CBLR, 2013 provisions. Issue 1: Challenge against the order of suspension of license by Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi The appellant appealed against the order suspending their license issued by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi. The appellant, a CHA licensee, was prohibited from operating as a customs broker in Mumbai ports due to alleged irregularities. The Commissioner of Customs, Delhi suspended the license based on the prohibition order from Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. The appellant challenged the suspension on both time limit and merit grounds. Issue 2: Time limit observance under CBLR, 2013 Under CBLR, 2013, Regulation 19 empowers the Commissioner to suspend a custom broker with a clear procedure outlined in Regulation 20. The time limits prescribed under CBLR are crucial, with specific periods for issuing show cause notices, preparing inquiry reports, and passing orders. The appellant argued that the Commissioner of Customs, Delhi failed to adhere to the strict time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013, as the show cause notice was not issued within the stipulated 90 days from the date of receipt of the offense report. Issue 3: Merit-based challenge denying contravention of CBLR, 2013 provisions The appellant denied the allegations of contravening the provisions of CBLR, 2013, which led to the suspension of their license. The appellant's legal representative argued against the suspension on merit grounds, contesting the alleged irregularities. The Tribunal referenced previous judgments emphasizing the mandatory nature of time limits under CBLR, 2013, highlighting that strict adherence to these time frames is essential. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of suspension due to the failure to comply with the prescribed time limits, as per the decisions of the Hon'ble High Court and previous Tribunal rulings. This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues raised, the legal arguments presented, and the Tribunal's decision based on the observance of time limits under CBLR, 2013.
|
