2021 (6) TMI 372 - HC - Customs

Revocation of CHA License - mis-declaration of description of the imported goods - time limitation - HELD THAT - The impugned show cause notice is time barred and contrary to the law settled by this Court. The petitioner however appears to have participated in the adjudication of the impugned show cause notice and had acquiesced in it. Initially the petitioner had filed a preliminary objection dated 23.7.2016. This was received by the office of the 1st respondent on 28.7.2016. Thereafter the petitioner filed additional written submission on 26.6.2016 and enclosed few case laws - Without awaiting for the adjudication of the impugned show cause notice the petitioner has rushed to this court by way of the present writ petition on 5.12.2016. Since the petitioner has partly had acquiesced in the said show cause proceedings by participating in the said proceedings it was not open for the petitioner to file this writ a petition questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to impugned notice under Regulation 20 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013; Timing of the show cause notice; Compliance with Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013; Participation in adjudication process; Jurisdiction of the respondent.

Analysis:
The writ petition sought to quash a notice issued under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013. The petitioner contended that the notice was contrary to the regulation. The notice related to alleged mis-declaring of imported goods, which had led to penalties imposed on the petitioner under Sections 112 and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner argued that a previous show cause notice had already been issued for the same offense. The petitioner also claimed that the notice was issued long after the revocation of another party's license. Additionally, it was argued that the notice was issued after the passing of an earlier order, making it time-barred.

The petitioner cited various legal decisions to support their case, emphasizing similar situations where relief was granted to customs agents. The respondents defended the notice, stating that the licensing authority became aware of the offense only in 2016, justifying the timing of the notice under Regulation 20(1) of CBLR, 2013. An additional affidavit highlighted the jurisdictional changes and the evolution of the Commissionerate VIII, where the notice originated.

During the hearing, it was noted that the facts were not in dispute, and the impugned notice was issued based on information received in 2016. Despite the lack of filed communication, excerpts from the notice detailed the alleged offense involving misdeclaration of goods. The court observed that the notice appeared time-barred and contrary to established legal principles. However, the petitioner's participation in the adjudication process weakened their challenge. The court opined that filing the writ petition without awaiting the outcome of the notice was premature, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The court directed the respondent to proceed in accordance with the law, emphasizing that the petitioner should be given a hearing before any final decision.

In conclusion, the writ petition was dismissed without costs, with the directive for the respondent to act in line with the court's order within a specified timeframe. The judgment highlighted the importance of due process and participation in legal proceedings before seeking judicial intervention.