2017 (1) TMI 282 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - time bar - time limits as prescribed under Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013 for conduct of various activities by Revenue - amendment made in the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHALR) vide N/N. 30/2010-Cus (NT) dated 8.4.2010 prescribing various time limits - Held that - Revenue has taken 1221 days to complete the actions for which a period of 270 days is prescribed in CBLR, 2013. There has been a delay of almost three years and more than four times the prescribed time has been taken - reliance was placed in the case of Saro International Freight System 2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , where it was held that the time limit prescribed under the CBLR, 2013 are mandatory in nature. In the instant case the appellant has been out of work for long period of time. In most such cases the licences are suspended as soon as the inquiry starts and remain suspended till the enquiry is completed. The Custom Brokers are deprived of the fundamental right to work for long periods of time. The fundamental right to work is being denied to the appellant due to failure of the Revenue to follow the time limits prescribed in the law - In the process on the one hand the Custom Broker who are unscrupulous get the advantage of these delays in their defence, the good ones who are not guilty suffer for long periods of time. In both the cases the justice is not delivered. It was obvious that there is lack of supervision and effort to adhere to the time limit prescribed by law. This will assume serious implications especially in view of the fact that Courts have held time limit to be mandatory in nature - The Revenue seeks the time of 8 to 12 months just to compile the data of such delays. Suffice to say in such a serious issue needs immediate attention of CBE&C and Chief Commissioner of Customs. As a result of such delay, a number of serious offenders will get the benefit and be left of the hook and go scot free, which is not the intent of lawn Similarly, due to the delays, people who are not guilty will continue to suffer the suspension and revocation on account of delays by Revenue due to lack of responsibility. The license which is revoked by the impugned order is restored forthwith and Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai is directed to do the needful immediately - appeal allowed on limitation - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in the revocation process of the Customs Broker license under CBLR, 2013.
2. Interpretation of the time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013.
3. Impact of non-adherence to prescribed time limits on the revocation proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in the Revocation Process of the Customs Broker License:
The appellant, M/s. Seej India, challenged the revocation of their Customs Broker license, citing significant delays by the Revenue in adhering to the prescribed time limits under the Customs Broker License Regulation (CBLR), 2013. The learned Counsel highlighted that the regulations and Circular No. 9/2010 dated 8.4.2010 issued by Revenue prescribe specific time limits for various stages of the revocation process. The Tribunal noted similar delays in other cases, such as Lohia Travels and Cargo, where the time limits were not adhered to.

2. Interpretation of the Time Limits Prescribed Under CBLR, 2013:
The Tribunal examined whether the time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013 are mandatory or directory. The appellant's Counsel argued that the time limits are mandatory, supported by decisions from the Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Madras. Conversely, the Revenue's representative (Ld AR) contended that the time limits are directory, relying on the Tribunal's decision in Unison Clearing and the Hon’ble Apex Court's decision in Chairman of LIC vs. A. Masilamani, which held that delays in disciplinary proceedings do not automatically invalidate the proceedings.

3. Impact of Non-Adherence to Prescribed Time Limits on the Revocation Proceedings:
The Tribunal found that the time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013 were not followed in the appellant’s case, with delays amounting to almost three years beyond the prescribed nine months. The Tribunal noted that such delays are not exceptional but rather regular, as evidenced by the data provided by Revenue, showing significant delays in other cases as well.

The Tribunal referred to multiple judgments, including those from the Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Madras, which emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limits. The Tribunal also highlighted the adverse impact of such delays on Customs Brokers, who are often left without work for extended periods due to the suspension of their licenses.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the time limits prescribed under CBLR, 2013 are mandatory. Given the inordinate delays in the appellant’s case, the Tribunal allowed the appeal on the grounds of limitation without examining the merits of the case. The Tribunal restored the appellant’s license and directed the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai, to take immediate action. The Tribunal also emphasized the need for the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBE&C) and the Chief Commissioner of Customs to address the systemic delays in the revocation process.