2020 (2) TMI 175 - HC - Customs

Suspension of CHA license - alleged forgery by staff of the petitioner of the signature of the clerk of the Container Freight Station - regulation 20 of CBLR - HELD THAT - The issue decided in the case of SANTON SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that the show cause notice issued beyond the limitation period and was not sustainable. There is no justification keeping the petitioners' license suspended any longer - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Suspension of Customs Broker license under Regulation 19(1) of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.
2. Issuance of notice to revoke the license under Regulation 20 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner's Customs Broker license was suspended on 09.06.2015 due to alleged irregularities, including forgery by the petitioner's staff. The suspension was continued by an impugned order dated 02.07.2015. The petitioner challenged both the suspension order and the notice to revoke the license under Regulation 20.

2. The petitioner argued that Regulation 20 requires proceedings to be initiated within 90 days of receiving the offence report. Citing previous court decisions, the petitioner contended that the impugned notice dated 07.07.2015 was beyond the prescribed time limit and should be quashed. The respondent, however, argued that the 90-day period in Regulation 20 is directory, not mandatory.

3. The court considered the arguments and relied on previous decisions to conclude that the impugned notice dated 07.07.2015 was indeed issued beyond the statutory time limit and therefore liable to be quashed. Consequently, the suspension order dated 09.06.2015 was also quashed since the notice to revoke the license was invalidated.

4. The court held that there was no justification to keep the petitioner's license suspended any longer after quashing both the impugned notice and the suspension order. As a result, both writ petitions were allowed, providing consequential relief to the petitioner, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without costs.