9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 720 - AT - CustomsSuspension and Revocation of CHA License - time limitation - case of appellant is that the Commissioner of Customs has not completed the proceedings within the period prescribed in Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 - Held that - Regulation 20(1) requires issuance of the show-cause notice within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report - The offence report was forwarded by DRI on 02.12.2016 and as per the Revenue, it was received on 23.12.2016. The show-cause notice was issued on 06.04.2017, with a delay of 108 days. The law is very clear and it stands held that the time-limit prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing are sacrosanct and are required to be adhered to. Admittedly in the present case, the time prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations has not been followed, failure to do so will result in setting aside the order arising out of such provisions - the order of revocation and restore the licence is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against CHA's suspension 2. Appeal against revocation of CHA's license based on limitation under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013 Analysis: 1. The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai involved two appeals related to CHA's suspension and revocation of license arising from the same set of facts. The Tribunal noted that since the CHA's license was revoked by a subsequent order, the appeal against suspension became infructuous and was disposed of accordingly. 2. The appellant challenged the revocation of the license on the grounds of limitation, arguing that the proceedings were not completed within the prescribed period under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2013. The Tribunal observed a delay at various stages, including the issuance of the show-cause notice, preparation of the inquiry officer's report, and the passing of the order by the Commissioner of Customs. 3. Regulation 20(1) mandates the issuance of a show-cause notice within 90 days from the receipt of the offense report. In this case, there was a delay of 108 days between the receipt of the offense report and the issuance of the notice. Similarly, the preparation of the inquiry officer's report and the passing of the order exceeded the prescribed time limits under the regulation. 4. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of adhering to the time limits set forth in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, citing various judicial precedents to support this stance. Reference was made to decisions by the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which emphasized the importance of complying with the prescribed time limits in such matters. 5. Considering the non-compliance with the time limits prescribed under the regulations in the present case, the Tribunal concluded that the order of revocation had to be set aside on this ground alone. Without delving into the merits of the case, the Tribunal decided to restore the CHA's license based on the failure to adhere to the procedural timelines specified in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations. 6. Ultimately, both appeals were disposed of by setting aside the order of revocation and reinstating the CHA's license solely on the basis of non-compliance with the time limits prescribed under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and time limits in matters concerning the revocation of licenses.
|
