9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 700 - HC - CustomsRevocation of CHA license - Forfeiture of security deposit - service of notice as per section 20(1) of the CBLR - time limitation - whether the SCN issued by the SIIB would constitute an 'offence report' for the purpose of Regulation 20(1) of the Regulation? - HELD THAT - In the present case a comparison of the SCNs issued by the SIIB on the one hand and the respondent on the other makes it very clear that the latter SCN has been issued only based on the information culled by the SIIB; in fact some portions of SCN dated 27.07.2017 appear to have been bodily lifted from the earlier SCN dated 09.05.2017. Thus, clearly it is the SCN issued by the SIIB that forms the information/'offence report' on the basis of which SCN dated 27.07.2017 has been issued - This argument of the petitioner is thus rejected. Timelines stipulated in Regulation 20(5) of CBLR - HELD THAT - The SCN based on the offence report is dated 27.07.2017; thus the enquiry report ought to have been furnished within 90 days from 27.07.2017 i.e. on or before 27.10.2017; however the enquiry report is dated 02.11.2017, beyond the period stipulated in Regulation 20(5) - Courts have consistently taken the view that the timelines set out in the CBLR are not just directory but mandatory and have to be strictly followed/ enforced. The impugned order revoking the licence is set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
Issues:
Challenge to revocation of customs house agent license under Regulation 20(7) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 and penalty imposition under Regulation 18 without forfeiture of security. Analysis: Issue 1: Violation of Regulation 20(1) of CBLR The petitioner challenges the revocation of the license based on the issuance of a show cause notice (SCN) by the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch (SIIB) of the Customs Department. The petitioner argues that the SCN was unclear and did not comply with the requirement of issuing a notice within 90 days from the 'offence report' as per Regulation 20(1) of CBLR. The court refers to a previous judgment where it was held that any report indicating non-compliance, misconduct, or failure to comply with regulations can be considered an 'offence report.' The court rejects the petitioner's argument, stating that the SCN issued by SIIB constituted the 'offence report' for the subsequent SCN issued by the respondent. Issue 2: Timelines stipulated in Regulation 20(5) The petitioner also contests the delay in submitting the enquiry report beyond the stipulated 90-day period as required by Regulation 20(5) of CBLR. The court emphasizes that previous judgments have consistently upheld the mandatory nature of the timelines set out in CBLR. Citing various cases, the court affirms that these timelines are not merely directory but must be strictly adhered to. As the enquiry report was submitted after the prescribed period, the court rules in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order revoking the license and allowing the writ petition. In conclusion, the court found in favor of the petitioner on both issues raised, emphasizing the importance of strict compliance with the timelines and regulations set out in the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The revocation of the license and penalty imposition were set aside, and the writ petition was allowed without costs.
|
