2019 (4) TMI 85 - AT - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 - forfeiture of security deposit - time limitation - report of the Inquiry Officer not submitted within a period of 90 days from the issue of SCN under Regulation 20 (5) - order of the competent authority was not issued within 90 days after receipt of the inquiry officer s report as per Regulation 27 of the CBLR - Held that - As the time limits laid down in Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013 have been followed in the breach, the impugned order of revocation and forfeiture of security deposit cannot be sustained and will require to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Revocation of license under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013 due to non-compliance with time limits.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns the revocation of the appellant's license under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013, and the forfeiture of the security deposit. The impugned order revoked the license and forfeited the security deposit under Regulation 20(7) of the CBLR. The key contention raised by the appellant was the non-compliance with the time limits prescribed in the CBLR. The appellant argued that the time limits specified in Regulation 20 were not adhered to, both in the submission of the Inquiry Officer's report and the issuance of the order by the competent authority. The appellant relied on various case laws to support their argument, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the time limits set forth in the CBLR.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, acknowledged the correctness of the appellant's assertion regarding the non-compliance with the time limits. Referring to previous decisions, including KMK Shipping and Clearing Pvt. Ltd. and Gudwil Maritime Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized the mandatory nature of the time limits prescribed in the CBLR. The Tribunal noted that the Inquiry Officer's report was submitted beyond the prescribed 90-day period, which was considered a breach of the mandatory time limit. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of adhering to the time limits and the necessity for the Custom House to monitor compliance with these requirements diligently.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referenced a recent decision by the High Court of Madras in the case of Carewell Shipping Pvt. Ltd., which reiterated the mandatory nature of the time limits under the CBLR. The High Court's decision emphasized that the failure to adhere to the prescribed time limits renders subsequent proceedings invalid. In light of the discussions and the legal precedents cited, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order of revocation and forfeiture could not be sustained due to the breach of the time limits specified in Regulation 20 of the CBLR. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, granting any consequential benefits as per the law.

In summary, the judgment focused on the crucial issue of non-compliance with the mandatory time limits under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2013. The Tribunal emphasized the significance of adhering to these time limits, as highlighted in previous decisions and the recent ruling of the High Court of Madras. The decision ultimately resulted in setting aside the impugned order of revocation and forfeiture, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance in such matters.