2023 (3) TMI 250 - HC - Customs

Time Limitation to issue SCN to a Customs Broker (from date of receipt of offence report) - whether the learned Tribunal was correct in holding that a show cause notice under Regulation 20 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR) is required to be received by the customs broker within a period of ninety days of the receipt of the offence report and it is not sufficient that the notice is sent within the said period of ninety days? Whether the word issue is required to be construed as served ? HELD THAT - As it would be apparent in the facts of the present case, notice was, in fact, issued within the period of ninety days as contemplated under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR. Attempts to deliver the said notice to the respondent were also made within the said period but the notice could not be delivered by the postal authority as the premises of the respondent was found closed. Clearly, the question whether the procedure under Regulation 20 of the CBLR is triggered within time is not dependent on the customs broker receiving the notice - there are no reason to interpret the word issue , as used in regulation 20(1) of CBLR, in any way other than its plain meaning. In the context of issue of summons or notices, the same would be issued when they are prepared and put in the course for communicating to the recipient. In Banarsi Debi 1964 (3) TMI 11 - SUPREME COURT , the date of the notice for re-opening the assessments was within the eight years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year but the same was served beyond the period of eight years. One of the questions that arose for consideration of the court in that case related to the interpretation of Section 4 of the Indian Income Tax (Amendment) Act, 1959 (hereafter the Amending Act ). The object of the said Section was to save the validity of the notices which were issued beyond the prescribed time. Section 4 of the Amending Act used the word issue . The court held that if the narrow meaning is given to the expression issue , the Section would be unworkable because the objective of the Amending Act was to save the validity of the notices issued under Section 34(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which were beyond the period of eight years. It is in that context that the court held that the word issue under Section 4 of the Amending Act was used interchangeably as served , as the object was to save the notices which were served beyond the period of eight years. The court held that it was obvious that the expression issue , as used in Section 4 of the Amending Act, was not used in a narrow sense of sent as the principal Section 34(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 required the notice to be served within the prescribed period (eight years). In the present case, there is no ambiguity in the language of Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR. It requires that the Commissioner issues a notice within the period of ninety days from the receipt of the offence report. There is, thus, no reason to construe the expression issue any different from its plain meaning. The decision of the Supreme Court in R.K. Upadhyaya8 also recognizes that the plain meaning of the expression issuance of notice would be to dispatch the same. The learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the Commissioner was required to serve a notice to the respondent within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the offence report. The Commissioner was required to issue a notice within the period of ninety days and there is no dispute that it had done so - The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Tribunal to consider the respondent s appeal on merits - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of the term "issue" under Regulation 20(1) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 (CBLR).
2. Validity of the show cause notice issued to the respondent.
3. Compliance with the procedural requirements under the CBLR.
4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs in revoking the Customs Broker License.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of the term "issue" under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR:
The central question was whether the term "issue" in Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR should be interpreted as "served" or merely as "dispatched." The court examined the context and statutory framework, concluding that "issue" means the action of preparing and dispatching the notice, not necessarily its receipt by the customs broker. The court referenced Black's Law Dictionary and previous judgments, emphasizing the plain meaning of "issue" as sending forth or promulgating, rather than receiving. The court distinguished this case from others where "issue" was interpreted as "serve," such as in the Wealth Tax Act, emphasizing the specific statutory context of the CBLR.

2. Validity of the show cause notice issued to the respondent:
The respondent argued that the show cause notice received on 28.08.2018 was beyond the 90-day period from the receipt of the offence report on 18.05.2018, thus invalid under Regulation 20(1) of the CBLR. However, the court found that the notice was prepared and dispatched within the 90-day period, with multiple delivery attempts made before the eventual hand delivery. The court held that the procedural requirement was met as the notice was "issued" within the stipulated time, regardless of the actual receipt date.

3. Compliance with the procedural requirements under the CBLR:
The court examined the procedural compliance under Regulation 20 of the CBLR, noting that the Commissioner had issued the show cause notice within the required 90 days. The court emphasized that the initiation of proceedings is contingent on the issuance (dispatch) of the notice, not its receipt by the customs broker. The court rejected the respondent's contention that the term "issue" should be interpreted as "received" to align with the strict timelines for subsequent procedural steps under Regulation 20.

4. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs in revoking the Customs Broker License:
The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, noting that the Commissioner had acted within the statutory framework by issuing the notice within the prescribed period. The court found no procedural or jurisdictional error in the Commissioner's actions, thus supporting the revocation of the respondent's Customs Broker License, forfeiture of the security deposit, and imposition of the penalty.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in holding that the notice needed to be received by the customs broker within 90 days. It clarified that "issue" means dispatch within the stipulated period. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal to consider the respondent's appeal on merits.

← Previous Next →