9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (5) TMI 80 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - whether notice issued by Commissioner of Customs in writing to the Custom Broker within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report is required to be served within 90 days or not? - Regulation 20 of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013 - HELD THAT - The Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Custom Broker within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report which means that the Commissioner of Customs is required to issue notice in writing to the Custom Broker which does not mean that if he has issued the notice and kept it in his file, so, he has complied with the provisions of Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. In fact, it is to be issued to the Custom Broker which means it should be received by Custom Broker. The notice was required to be received by the Custom Broker within 90 days of the receipt of the offence report - Admittedly, as per the impugned order itself, the notice was received by the Custom Broker only on 28 August, 2018 which is the period beyond the 90 days prescribed in the said Regulation. The SCN issued to the Custom Broker is barred by limitation - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the show cause notice issued to the appellant is barred by limitation under Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation (CBLR), 2013. 2. The interpretation of the terms "issued" and "served" in the context of the Customs Act, 1962 and CBLR, 2013. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Limitation of Show Cause Notice The appellant contended that the show cause notice was barred by limitation, arguing that it must be "served" within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report, not merely "issued." The appellant relied on judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court cases of Commissioner of Wealth Tax, U.P. and another Vs. Kundan Lal Behari Lal and Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Dharma Properties Private Limited, to support the interpretation that "issued" means "served." The respondent, represented by the Authorised Representative, argued that the notice was issued within the 90-day period as it was handed over to postal authorities on 14 August 2018, which falls within the stipulated period. They cited the Delhi High Court decision in Purushottam Jajodia Vs. Dir. Of Revenue Intelligence to support their contention. Issue 2: Interpretation of "Issued" and "Served" The tribunal examined the definitions and judicial interpretations of the terms "issued" and "served." The appellant's counsel referred to the Advanced Law Lexicon Dictionary and various Supreme Court judgments, which suggested that "issued" encompasses the entire process of sending and serving the notice. The tribunal also noted that the Customs Act, 1962, under Section 153, prescribes the procedure for service of notices, emphasizing that issuance must precede service. The tribunal reviewed the relevant provisions of Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013, which mandates that the Commissioner of Customs must issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within 90 days from the date of receipt of an offence report. The tribunal interpreted this to mean that the notice must be received by the Customs Broker within the 90-day period. Tribunal's Findings and Judgment: 1. Limitation: The tribunal found that the notice was received by the Customs Broker on 28 August 2018, which is beyond the 90-day period from the receipt of the offence report on 18 May 2018. Therefore, the show cause notice was held to be barred by limitation. 2. Interpretation of "Issued" and "Served": The tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's interpretation that "issued" means "served." They concluded that the notice must be received by the Customs Broker within the stipulated period to comply with Regulation 20 of CBLR, 2013. The tribunal set aside the impugned order, holding that the show cause notice was barred by limitation and thus not sustainable in law. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief. Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open Court on 26.04.2019.
|
