2017 (6) TMI 308 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - under invoicing of goods - bar of time limits specified under the Regulation 20 - Held that - The specified time limit of 90 days for issue of SCN is to be determined from the date of offence report - In the present case, the offence report is in the form of a letter issued by the Mumbai Customs to Delhi Customs which has been enclosed with the SCN issued for the alleged customs offence. Since the date of the letter is 01.12.2014, it is reasonable to presume that the same has been received by the Delhi Customs shortly thereafter. Consequently the show cause notice dated 03.03.2015 cannot be held as issued beyond the time limit specified in the regulation 20 - the impugned order is required to be considered on merits and on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of time limits under CHALR 2004 for disciplinary proceedings, revocation of CHA license, forfeiture of security deposit, imposition of penalty, violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Customs) New Delhi, revoking the CHA license of the appellant and imposing penalties. The appellant, a customs broker, was involved in a case of under-invoicing detected by Mumbai Customs during the clearance of imported goods. The disciplinary proceedings initiated by Delhi Customs were challenged on the grounds of exceeding the time limits specified under CHALR 2004. The appellant argued that the show cause notice was issued beyond the mandatory period of 90 days, citing case laws to support their claim.

The appellant also contested the impugned order on the basis of violation of natural justice and lack of access to documents forming the basis of the alleged offence. The appellant claimed that they were not provided with the necessary documents by either Mumbai Customs or Delhi Customs, and that they should not be held responsible for under-invoicing as they relied on documents provided by the importer. The respondent, however, argued that the under-invoicing was facilitated by an employee of the appellant, making them accountable for the violation of regulations.

The Tribunal considered the issue of time limits for issuing the show cause notice and determined that the notice dated 03.03.2015 was not issued beyond the specified 90-day period, as the date of the offence report was deemed to be 01.12.2014. However, in light of the appellant's claims regarding the lack of access to crucial documents and the violation of natural justice, the Tribunal directed a remand of the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The adjudicating authority was instructed to provide copies of relevant documents to the appellant and complete the proceedings within one month, emphasizing that the appellant should not seek unnecessary adjournments.

In conclusion, the Tribunal refrained from making any observations on the merits of the case, highlighting the importance of due process and access to information in disciplinary proceedings under CHALR 2004. The decision underscored the need for a fair and transparent adjudication process, ensuring that all parties have the opportunity to present their case effectively.