9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 645 - HC - CustomsRevocation of CHA license - imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of CA - time limitation - HELD THAT - Though the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) MUMBAI VERSUS UNISON CLEARING PVT. LTD., AND OTHERS. 2018 (4) TMI 1053 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , has given a different interpretation to the effect that the limitation prescribed in Regulation 20 of the Customs License Brokers Act, 2014 is directory and not mandatory, I am bound to follow the views taken by this Court in SANTON SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT and M/S MASTERSTROKE FREIGHT FORWARDERS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) , THE INQUIRY OFFICER/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2015 (12) TMI 1148 - MADRAS HIGH COURT where it was held that Once the limitation prescribed is mandatory, as has been declared by the courts of law, it cannot be stated that, because of the other issues, that is the merit of the case, this mandatory requirement of the limitation can be ignored. Since the Show Cause Notice dated 07.07.2014 was issued beyond 90 days, the consequential order passed by the 1st respondent is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to revocation of license based on impugned order dated 11.06.2015, penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, suspension of license on 05.06.2014, show cause notice dated 02.07.2014, limitation of 90 days for issuing Show Cause Notice under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers License Regulation, 2014, interpretation of whether the limitation is mandatory or directory. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the revocation of their license based on the impugned order dated 11.06.2015, which was a consequence of proceedings initiated against the importer on 16.07.2012. The petitioner was directed to pay a penalty of &8377; 47,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, through order-in-original No.24505/2014 dated 28.03.2014. Subsequently, the petitioner's license was suspended on 05.06.2014, and a show cause notice dated 02.07.2014 was issued. The petitioner contended that under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers License Regulation, 2014, a 90-day limitation is prescribed for issuing a Show Cause Notice. The petitioner argued that the issue at hand was previously addressed in various cases, including M/s.KTR Logistics Solutions Pvt.Ltd. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Another and Santon Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Another. Moreover, the petitioner referred to the decision in Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt.Ltd Vs. Commissioner, highlighting the settled nature of the issue. The Standing Counsel for the respondent cited the decision of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Prinicpal Commr. Of CUS. Vs Unioson clearing Pvt. Ltd., which presented a different interpretation regarding the nature of the limitation prescribed in Regulation 20 of the Customs License Brokers Act, 2014, suggesting it to be directory and not mandatory. After hearing both parties, the Court noted the conflicting interpretations but decided to follow the views taken by the Madras High Court in Santon Shipping Services Vs. The Commissioner of Customs and Another and Masterstroke Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner. As the Show Cause Notice dated 07.07.2014 was issued beyond the 90-day limitation, the consequential order revoking the license was deemed liable to be quashed and was subsequently quashed. Consequently, the Court allowed the Writ Petition, with no costs imposed, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, bringing the case to a conclusion.
|
