9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mit of fifteen days has to be considered as mandatory as per Regulation 20(3). Therefore we hold that the non-passing of order by the learned Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad within 15 days from the post-decisional hearing dated 24-10-2011 is in clear violation of the mandatory provision of Regulation 20(3) which, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, vitiated the ex parte suspension order passed by the Commissioner. From the report received from the respondent’s side today, it appears that it is not the case of the respondent that non-passing of the order was due to any omission or fault or mistake of the appellant - Decided in favour of Appellant. - C/186/2012 - 596/2012 - Dated:- 27-8-2012 - Shri P.G. Chacko and M. Veeraiya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... umbai Customs? No (b) If so, whether the appellant CHA has been named a co-noticee In the SCN? N.A., in view of the reply at (a) above. (c) Whether proceedings have been initiated against the appellant CHA in terms of Regulation 22 of the CHALR? If so, the details thereof. No (d) Whether any action has been initiated against the appellant CHA in terms of the provisions of Regulation 20(3) of the CHALR, 2004? If so the details thereof. No 3. After perusing the above report filed on behalf of the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the provisions of Regulation 20(3) of the CHALR, 2004 have been violated by the Commissioner of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed time upon receipt of investigation report from the Mumbai Customs Commissionerate. It is also not in dispute that a post-decisional hearing of the CHA was held on 24-10-2011 within the prescribed time. On that date, the learned Commissioner also took note of a representation filed by the CHA. However, no decision was taken in the matter. As per Regulation 20(3) of the CHALR, 2004, the Commissioner ought to have passed an order within 15 days from the date of post-decisional hearing. We have come to learn that no order has been passed hitherto by the Commissioner. Regulation 20(3) was considered by the Board in Circular No. 9/2010-Cus., ibid. Paragraph 7.2 of the Circular reads as under : 7.2. In cases where immediate suspensi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs may, within fifteen days from the date of such suspension, give an opportunity of hearing to the Customs House Agent whose licence is suspended and may pass such order as he deems fit either revoking the suspension or continuing it, as the case may be, within fifteen days from the date of hearing granted to the Customs House Agent. (underlining added) On a comparison of the underlined sentences, we observe that the Circular, by adding the clause where it is possible to do so , liberalised the sub-regulation with a departmental bias. The time limit of fifteen days has to be considered as mandatory as per Regulation 20(3). Therefore we hold that the non-passing of order by the learned Commissioner of Customs, Hy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
