9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (11) TMI 46 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - penalty - date of offence report - time limitation - Held that - The Madras High Court in the case of A.M. Ahamed & Co. Vs. CC (Imports), Chennai 2014 (9) TMI 237 - MADRAS HIGH COURT examined the scope of the offence report . After noting the provisions of regulation and scope of implication of offence report, the Hon ble High Court concluded that the show cause notice issued to the petitioner with a copy to the Commissioner should be taken as a date of receipt of offence report. Consequently, the period of 90 days should commence only from that date. In the present case, the SCN dated 20.05.2013 was issued to the appellant with a copy marked to the office of the Commissioner as well as to the notice board of the DRI and the Commissioner. Following the ratio of the Hon ble Madras High Court, the said SCN construed as offence report as the present proceedings are of the same set of facts/offences alleged against the appellant. Since the said SCN was dated 20.05.2013 and the proceedings under CBLR was initiated by notice dated 12.08.2016, the proceedings are substantially delayed and the same is in violation of Regulation 20(1) of CBLR 2013. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Revocation of customs broker license under Customs Act and Customs Broker Licence Regulation, 2013 (CBLR) based on importation of mobile phones in violation of Customs Act. Compliance with statutory time limit under CBLR for initiating proceedings against the customs broker. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the order revoking the appellant's customs broker license issued by the Commissioner of Customs (General), NCH, New Delhi. The appellant, a licensed customs broker, faced proceedings for involvement in the importation of mobile phones via various bills of entries in April 2012, in violation of the Customs Act. The Original Order dated 18.05.2016 concluded the Customs Act proceedings, followed by initiation of proceedings under CBLR for license revocation based on violations. The impugned order revoked the license and forfeited the security deposited by the appellant, citing violations of CBLR. 2. The appellant contested the Commissioner's findings, arguing non-adherence to the statutory time limit prescribed under CBLR in the proceedings. The appellant highlighted the Tribunal's previous decision setting aside a license revocation order dated 12.08.2016. Regulation 22 of CBLR mandates initiating proceedings within 90 days of receiving the offense report. The appellant disputed the calculation of the time limit from the date of adjudication of the customs offense case, asserting it was erroneous and contrary to legal precedents. 3. The Department's representative defended the proceedings, stating that the offense details from the customs proceedings were timely conveyed to the Licensing Authority, justifying the initiation of proceedings under CBLR within the stipulated 90 days. The Department maintained the legality of the ongoing proceedings. 4. The Tribunal heard both parties and reviewed the appeal records. 5. The Original Authority's decision on the date of receipt of the offense report was scrutinized. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the calculation of the time limit for initiating proceedings under CBLR. The show cause notice issued by DRI to the appellant was stamped received on 23.05.2013, not in line with the Original Authority's findings. Citing a Madras High Court case, the Tribunal clarified that the show cause notice should be considered the offense report's receipt date, starting the 90-day period. Consequently, the delay in initiating CBLR proceedings from the show cause notice date rendered the proceedings in violation of CBLR 2013, leading to setting aside the impugned order on grounds of limitation. 6. Following legal precedents and the High Court's decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order solely due to the limitation issue. Conclusion: The Tribunal's decision favored the appellant by setting aside the order revoking the customs broker license based on the violation of the statutory time limit under CBLR for initiating proceedings. The judgment emphasized adherence to legal provisions and precedents in determining the validity of license revocation actions.
|
