2018 (2) TMI 849 - AT - Customs

Suspension of CHA License - validity of proceedings - time limit as per CBLR 2013 - Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013 - Held that - In the present case, the said notice has been issued, admittedly, on 9.12.2016 only, much later than 90 days limit. We note that by now, it is well settled principle that has been upheld by the various High Courts as well as by this Tribunal that the time limit mentioned in the CBLR, 2013 are mandatory and are to be statutorily enforced in proceedings against Customs Broker. The present proceedings are not sustainable for violation of period of limitation as per CBLR 2013 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing cross objection by Revenue
2. Revocation of license of Customs House Agent
3. Question of limitation and jurisdiction

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing cross objection by Revenue:
The Revenue filed a cross objection after a delay of 5 days, arguing that it was merely comments on the appeal without any specific grievance. The Tribunal allowed the condonation of delay and took up the appeal for final disposal, which was regarding the revocation of the license of a Customs House Agent.

2. Revocation of license of Customs House Agent:
The appellant, a licensed Customs House Agent, was accused of violating the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013, in relation to export cargo clearance. The investigation by SIIB officers led to the suspension of the appellant's license by the Commissioner of Customs. Subsequent letters detailed the investigation and the role of the appellant in the alleged violation, leading to the revocation of the license after a show cause notice and inquiry process.

3. Question of limitation and jurisdiction:
The appellant's counsel argued that the suspension of the license was based on a preliminary report, and the time limit for issuing a show cause notice from the date of the offense report was not adhered to, which would invalidate the proceedings. The Tribunal held that the time limit prescribed in the CBLR 2013 is mandatory and must be enforced. Referring to previous decisions, including one by the Hon'ble Madras High Court, the Tribunal concluded that the proceedings were not sustainable due to a violation of the limitation period. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the Tribunal emphasized the statutory enforcement of time limits in proceedings against Customs Brokers and ruled in favor of the appellant based on the violation of the period of limitation as per the CBLR 2013, without delving into the merits of the case.