2017 (5) TMI 545 - HC - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - Did CESTAT in the facts and circumstances of this case fall into error in directing the Competent Authority to conclude the investigation and take a final decision in the inquiry, contrary to the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 (CBLR), as interpreted by this Court in its various judgments? - The case of the Appellant is that despite repeated requests, the documents relied upon were not supplied. The Commissioner of Customs (General) by an order dated 1st June, 2016 proceeded to revoke the Appellant s licence without following the procedure outlined under the CBLR 2013. Held that - Regulation 20 (1) of the CBLR 2013 is categorical in that prior to revocation of the licence, a SCN in writing has to be issued to the Customs Broker. The SCN has to be issued within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report . The SCN in the present case was issued only on 16th December 2016, more than six months after the revocation of the Appellant s licence. It was issued in fact after the impugned order dated 17th October, 2016 of the CESTAT - Unless the Department is able to show that there is a final report which is dated not later than 90 days prior to the SCN dated 16th December, 2016, there would be no compliance with the mandatory time limit set down under Regulation 20 (1) of CBLR 2013. Nowhere in the counter-affidavit is there a positive averment that a final offence report was dated within the period of 90 days prior to 16th December 2016, when the SCN was issued to the Appellant for the first time. The entire action in proceeding to revoke the Appellant s licence was contrary to CBLR 2013 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against Final Order dated 17th October, 2016 passed by CESTAT.
2. Compliance with Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.
3. Validity of revocation of Customs Broker Licence.
4. Jurisdiction of CESTAT in extending investigation time.

Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the Final Order dated 17th October, 2016 by CESTAT. The question framed for consideration was whether CESTAT erred in directing the Competent Authority to conclude the investigation and make a final decision contrary to the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 (CBLR).

2. The Appellant's Customs Broker Licence was suspended on 19th April, 2016, and later revoked on 1st June, 2016, without following the procedure outlined in CBLR 2013. The CESTAT directed the Competent Authority to conclude the investigation within three months. However, subsequent actions, including the issuance of a Show-Cause Notice (SCN) on 16th December, 2016, were found to be in violation of the time limits prescribed by CBLR 2013.

3. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the time limits under CBLR 2013, highlighting that the SCN should have been issued within 90 days of the receipt of the 'offence report.' The failure to issue the SCN within the stipulated time rendered the revocation of the licence invalid. The CESTAT's extension of time for investigations was deemed without jurisdiction, and the revocation order was set aside.

4. It was noted that the actions taken, including the revocation of the licence, were contrary to CBLR 2013 due to non-compliance with mandatory time limits. The Court found that the CESTAT's decision to extend the investigation time was invalid, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the violations of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013, and the ultimate decision of the Court in setting aside the orders due to non-compliance and lack of jurisdiction.