2017 (9) TMI 681 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA license - forfeiture of security deposit - time limitation - Regulation 22 of Customs House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004 - Department took two years and five months to complete the proceedings - fraudulent export - Held that - Regulation 22 framed the time schedule for completion of the revocation proceedings - The Commissioner of Customs shall furnish the copy of the enquiry report to the Customs Broker to submit the representation within a period of not less than 30 days. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Customs may pass such order within 90 days from the date of submission of the report by the Deputy Commissioner or the Assistant Commissioner of Customs Regulation 20(5) of Customs Brokers Licensing (Amendment) Regulations (CBLR), 2013. The enquiry officer had taken 18 months to complete the enquiry against the stipulated period of 3 months. It is noted that the Commissioner of Customs had taken 10 months as against the stipulated period of 90 days - The Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Shipping Agency V. Commr. of Customs (Port), Kolkata 2016 (12) TMI 889 - CESTAT KOLKATA , has held that The time limit prescribed by law is mandatory and the appellant is not permitted to suffer in view of the decisions of the Tribunal. Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all - In the present case, the said Rule would squarely apply. Therefore, the impugned order, passed by the Commissioner of Customs cannot be sustained under the law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of Customs House Agents license under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004 and forfeiture of security deposit.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the revocation of their Customs House Agents license and forfeiture of the security deposit under Regulation 20 of CHALR, 2004. The case involved fraudulent export under draw back claim by a company, where an employee of another agency filed shipping bills under the appellant's banner.

2. The appellant argued that the proceedings took longer than the prescribed time of nine months, citing a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.

3. The Tribunal analyzed Regulation 22 of CHALR, 2004, which outlines the procedure for suspending or revoking a license. The Commissioner of Customs must issue a notice within 90 days of receiving an offense report, allowing the agent to submit a defense. The Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner then conducts an inquiry and submits a report within 90 days.

4. The appellant presented a timeline showing delays in the proceedings, with the inquiry officer taking 18 months instead of the stipulated 3 months, and the Commissioner taking 10 months instead of 90 days. The Tribunal noted these delays and emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limits set by the law.

5. Citing previous Tribunal decisions and the High Court of Madras, the Tribunal highlighted the mandatory nature of the time limits prescribed in the regulations. Failure to adhere to these time limits without valid reasons renders the impugned order invalid.

6. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner of Customs cannot ignore the prescribed time limits without justification. As per legal principles, when a certain procedure is mandated by law, it must be followed strictly. In this case, the impugned order revoking the license was set aside, and the appeal by the appellant was allowed.

7. The Tribunal's decision was based on the mandatory nature of time limits in the regulations, emphasizing the importance of following prescribed procedures in legal matters. The impugned order revoking the license was overturned due to the failure to adhere to the statutory time limits.