9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (9) TMI 1182 - AT - CustomsIssuance of SCN beyond time limitation - import of contraband mainly cigarette - violation of Regulation 10 (a), 10 (d), 10 (e), 10 (j), 10 (k), 10 (n) of CBLR 2013 (and also 11 (a), 11 (d), 11 (j), 11 (k), 11(e), 11(n) of CBLR 2018) - HELD THAT - In the instant case the appellant has obtained the investigation report issued by the office of the Commissioner of Customs- Kutch Commissionerate SIIB branch dated 17.10.2014, wherein the entire facts of the case are narrated and recommendation for initiation of proceeding against the appellant have been made. It is observed that in the instant case the investigation report was issued letter dated 17.10.2014 which has been obtained by the appellant under RTI request dated 30.09.2022 made vide Letter No. S-43-29/SIIB/2013-14. The order of the Commissioner treats the show cause notice dated 03.03.2016 issued under Custom Act 1962 as offence report. Since, the investigation report, the offence report in the instant case, was issued on 17.04.2014 and the show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2018 it is clearly barred by limitation consequently. The show cause notice itself does not survive the best of limitation. Since, the show cause notice issued for revocation of license, forfeiture of security and for imposition of penalty under CBLR 2013 itself does not survive on the ground of limitation, the question of revocation, forfeiture and imposition of penalty also does not arise - Appeal allowed.
Issues: Violation of customs regulations, issuance of show cause notice beyond the limitation period, challenge to the order of revocation of license, forfeiture of security, and imposition of penalty.
Analysis: 1. The appeals were filed against the Orders-In-Original related to a case where contraband goods were found in containers declared as waste paper. The appellant was charged with various violations under CBLR 2013 and CBLR 2018, leading to a show cause notice seeking revocation of the custom broker license, forfeiture of security, and imposition of a penalty. 2. The appellant challenged the show cause notice's timing, arguing it was issued after the limitation period. The High Court directed the appellant to approach the Tribunal, which led to Appeal No. 10787 of 2021. The Commissioner held that the show cause notice was issued within the limitation period, which was challenged in the said appeal. 3. The Tribunal had previously set aside an order against another broker, Saarthee Shipping Company, due to delays in issuing orders. In the current case, the appellant obtained an investigation report recommending proceedings against them. The show cause notice was issued on 06.12.2018, based on an investigation report dated 17.10.2014, treated as the offense report. 4. Appeal No. 10788 of 2021 specifically addressed the issue of limitation. The order noted the show cause notice was issued within 90 days of receiving the offense report, dated 17.10.2014. The appellant obtained the investigation report through an RTI request in 2022, supporting the claim that the show cause notice was time-barred. 5. The Tribunal observed that the show cause notice issued beyond the limitation period did not survive. Therefore, the question of revocation of license, forfeiture of security, and imposition of a penalty did not arise. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, and the orders were set aside due to the show cause notice being barred by limitation. 6. The judgment was pronounced on 20.09.2024, concluding that the appeals were allowed based on the limitation issue, rendering the show cause notice invalid and the subsequent orders irrelevant.
|
