9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1185 - HC - CustomsSuspension of CHA License - service of notice for cancellation - petitioner claims that although its License has been suspended, the respondent has not initiated further proceedings for its revocation - Time limitation - Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR - Held that - In terms of Regulation 20(6) of the CBLR, the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs/Assistant Commissioner of Customs is required to be furnished to the Customs Broker requiring him to make a representation within a period of thirty days, thereafter - In terms of Regulation 20(7), the Commissioner of Customs is required to pass a final order within the period of ninety days of the receipt of the report of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs/Assistant Commissioner of Customs under Regulation 20(5) of CBLR. Thus, within a period of 270 (two hundered and seventy) days from the receipt of the offence report, the Commissioner of Customs has to pass an order either revoking the order of suspension or to revoke the License of the Customs Broker and/or impose a penalty as specified under Regulation 20(2) of the CBLR. A Custom Broker cannot carry on its business without a License and, therefore, revocation or suspension of such License has serious adverse consequences as it results in preventing the Customs Broker from carrying on its vocation. Given the serious nature of such action, strict timelines have been specified under Regulations 19 and 20 of the CBLR and the same must be adhered to. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the suspension of the petitioner’s Custom House Agents License. 2. Compliance with the timelines prescribed under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR). 3. Interpretation of the term "offence report" within the context of CBLR. 4. Whether the suspension order can be continued indefinitely without initiating revocation proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Suspension of the Petitioner’s Custom House Agents License: The petitioner challenged the order dated 18.03.2015, which confirmed the suspension of their Custom House Agents License under Regulation 19(2) of the CBLR. The petitioner argued that the suspension was not followed by any proceedings for revocation, as mandated by Regulation 20 of the CBLR. The court noted that Regulation 19(1) allows for immediate suspension if necessary, but Regulation 19(2) requires a hearing within fifteen days and a decision within fifteen days post-hearing. The court emphasized that the suspension order is interim and cannot be continued indefinitely without further proceedings under Regulation 20. 2. Compliance with the Timelines Prescribed under Regulation 20 of the CBLR: The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to initiate revocation proceedings within the ninety-day period stipulated by Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR. The court reaffirmed that the timelines under Regulation 20 are mandatory, as established in previous judgments such as Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (General) and Schankar Clearing & Forwarding v. C. C. (Import & General). The court highlighted that the respondent must issue a notice within ninety days from the receipt of an offence report, and the entire revocation process should be completed within 270 days. 3. Interpretation of the Term "Offence Report" within the Context of CBLR: The respondent argued that the timelines under Regulation 20 had not commenced as no offence report had been received. The court clarified that the term "offence report" refers to a report indicating that an offence has been committed by the Customs Broker, not necessarily a formal show cause notice. The court referred to a letter dated 16.02.2015 from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) as constituting an offence report, as it detailed the alleged overvaluation of goods by exporters to claim undue export incentives, implicating the petitioner. 4. Whether the Suspension Order Can Be Continued Indefinitely Without Initiating Revocation Proceedings: The court rejected the respondent's contention that the suspension could continue indefinitely pending the conclusion of investigations. The court stressed that the suspension must be followed by revocation proceedings under Regulation 20, which includes issuing a notice, allowing the Customs Broker to respond, and conducting an inquiry. The court underscored that the suspension order is an interim measure and must culminate in a final decision within the prescribed timelines to prevent indefinite suspension. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition and terminated the impugned suspension order, emphasizing the need for strict adherence to the timelines prescribed under Regulations 19 and 20 of the CBLR to ensure that the Customs Broker's ability to conduct business is not unduly hampered. The court's decision reinforces the procedural safeguards intended to protect the rights of Customs Brokers against indefinite suspension without timely adjudication.
|
